[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 815-1036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    THE KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today 
with my distinguished colleague Senator Schumer to introduce the ``Kate 
Mullany National Historic Site Designation Act,'' a bill to designate 
the Troy, New York, home of pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a 
National Historic Site. A similar measure introduced in the House of 
Representatives last year by Congressman Michael R. McNulty engendered 
a great deal of support and was cosponsored by over 100 members.
  Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her 
opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the 
collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''--
the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate 
stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that 
characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female 
laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions. 
These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which 
some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the 
country.''
  Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed. 
She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the 
sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant 
Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women 
ever appointed to a national labor office.
  On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National 
Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on 
July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy 
with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. By 
conferring National Historic Site status on this important landmark, we 
can ensure that Kate Mullany's contributions to the labor movement and 
the cause of women's equality in the workplace are not soon forgotten.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 66

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Kate Mullany National 
     Historic Site Designation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Kate Mullany House in Troy, New York, is listed on 
     the National Register of Historic Places and has been 
     designated as a National Historic Landmark;
       (2) the National Historic Landmark Theme Study on American 
     Labor History concluded that the Kate Mullany House appears 
     to meet the criteria of national significance, suitability, 
     and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System;
       (3) the city of Troy, New York--
       (A) played an important role in the development of the 
     collar and cuff industry and the iron industry in the 19th 
     century and in the development of early men's and women's 
     worker and cooperative organizations; and
       (B) was the home of the first women's labor union, led by 
     Irish immigrant Kate Mullany;
       (4) the city of Troy, New York, has entered into a 
     cooperative arrangement with 6 neighboring cities, towns, and 
     villages to create the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park 
     Commission to manage the valuable historic resources in the 
     area, and the area within those municipalities has been 
     designated by the State of New York as a heritage area to 
     represent industrial development and labor themes in the 
     development of the State;
       (5) the area, known as the ``Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural 
     Park'' or ``RiverSpark'', has been a pioneer in the 
     development of partnership parks in which intergovernmental 
     and public and private partnerships bring about the 
     conservation of the area's heritage and the attainment of 
     goals for preservation, education, recreation, and economic 
     development; and
       (6) establishment of the Kate Mullany National Historic 
     Site and cooperative efforts between the National Park 
     Service and the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park Commission 
     will--
       (A) provide opportunities for the illustration and 
     interpretation of important themes of the heritage of the 
     United States; and
       (B) provide unique opportunities for education, public use, 
     and enjoyment.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret the nationally significant 
     home of Kate Mullany for the benefit, inspiration, and 
     education of the people of the United States; and
       (2) to interpret the connection between immigration and the 
     industrialization of the United States, including the history 
     of Irish immigration, women's history, and worker history.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Kate Mullany National Historic Site established by section 4.
       (2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management 
     plan developed under section 6(d).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the 
     National Park System the Kate Mullany National Historic Site 
     in the State of New York.
       (b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     home of Kate Mullany, comprising approximately .05739 acre, 
     located at 350 Eighth Street in Troy, New York, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled _____ and dated ______.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land and 
     interests in land within the boundaries of the historic site 
     and ancillary real property for parking or interpretation, as 
     necessary and appropriate for management of the historic 
     site.
       (b) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal 
     property associated with, and appropriate for, the 
     interpretation of the historic site.
       (c) Means.--An acquisition of real property or personal 
     property may be made by donation, purchase from a willing 
     seller with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historic site in accordance with this Act and the law 
     generally applicable to units of the National Park System, 
     including the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National 
     Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 
     1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     provide for the preservation of historic American sites, 
     buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, 
     and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 
     461 et seq.).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may consult with and enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the State of New York, the Hudson-Mohawk 
     Urban Cultural Park Commission, and other public and private 
     entities to facilitate public understanding and enjoyment of 
     the life and work of Kate Mullany through the development, 
     presentation, and funding of exhibits and other appropriate 
     activities related to the preservation, interpretation, and 
     use of the historic site and related historic resources.
       (c) Exhibits.--The Secretary may display, and accept for 
     the purposes of display, items associated with Kate Mullany, 
     as may be necessary for the interpretation of the historic 
     site.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 full fiscal years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) develop a general management plan for the historic 
     site; and
       (B) submit the plan to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Contents.--The plan shall include recommendations for 
     regional wayside exhibits to be carried out through 
     cooperative agreements with the State of New York and other 
     public and private entities.
       (3) Requirements.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance 
     with section 12(b) of the

[[Page 816]]

     Act entitled ``An Act to improve the administration of the 
     national park system by the Secretary of the Interior, and to 
     clarify the authorities applicable to the system, and for 
     other purposes'', approved August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C 1a et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 67. A bill to designate the headquarters building of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, District of 
Columbia, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


     THE ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators 
Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, and Robb, to introduce legislation to 
name the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) headquarters 
here in Washington after Dr. Robert C. Weaver, adviser to three 
Presidents, director of the NAACP, and the first African-American 
Cabinet Secretary. With Senator Kerry, Senator Moseley-Braun, and 
Senator Kennedy I introduced an identical bill last year. It was passed 
by the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, 1998 but languished in 
the House.
  Bob Weaver was my friend, dating back more than 40 years to our 
service together in the administration of New York Governor Averell 
Harriman. In July of 1997, he died at his home in New York City after 
spending his entire life broadening opportunities for minorities in 
America. I think it is a fitting tribute to name the HUD building after 
this great man.
  Dr. Weaver began his career in government service as part of 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's ``Black Cabinet,'' an informal 
advisory group promoting educational and job opportunities for blacks. 
The Washington Post called this work his greatest legacy, the 
dismantling of a deeply entrenched system of racial segregation in 
America. Indeed it was.
  Dr. Weaver was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Housing for New York 
State in 1955, and later became State Rent Administrator with Cabinet 
rank. It was during these years, working for Governor Harriman, that I 
first met Bob; I was Assistant to the Secretary to the Governor and 
later, Acting Secretary.
  Our friendship and collaboration continued under the Kennedy and 
Johnson administrations. In 1960, he became the president of the NAACP, 
and shortly thereafter would become a key adviser to President Kennedy 
on civil rights. In 1961, Kennedy appointed Dr. Weaver to head the 
Housing and Home Finance Agency, the precursor to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. In 1966, when President Johnson elevated 
the agency to Cabinet rank, he chose Dr. Weaver to head the department. 
Bob Weaver was, in Johnson's phrase, ``the man for the job.'' He thus 
became its first Secretary, and the first African-American to head a 
Cabinet agency. Later, he and I served together on the Pennsylvania 
Avenue Commission.
  Following his government service, Dr. Weaver was, among various other 
academic pursuits, a professor at Hunter College, a member of the 
School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon, a visiting 
professor at Columbia Teacher's College and New York University's 
School of Education, and the president of Baruch College in Manhattan. 
When I became director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and 
Harvard, he generously agreed to be a member of the Board of Directors.
  Dr. Weaver earned his undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees 
in economics from Harvard; he wrote four books on urban affairs; and 
served as one of the original directors of the Municipal Assistance 
Corporation, which designed the plan to rescue New York City during its 
tumultuous financial crisis in the 1970s.
  When Dr. Weaver died, America--and Washington, in particular (for he 
was a native Washingtonian)--lost one of its innovators, one of its 
creators, one of its true leaders. Dr. Robert C. Weaver led not only 
with his words but with his deeds and I was privileged to know him as a 
friend. He will be missed but properly memorialized, I think, if we can 
pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, a July 21, 1997 
editorial in the Washington Post, and a July 19, 1997 obituary from the 
New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 67

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING.

       In honor of the first Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the headquarters building of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development located at 451 Seventh Street, 
     SW., in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the building referred 
     to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 19, 1997]

         Robert C. Weaver, 89, First Black Cabinet Member, Dies

                           (By James Barron)

       Dr. Robert C. Weaver, the first Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the first black person appointed to the 
     Cabinet, died on Thursday at his home in Manhattan. He was 
     89.
       Dr. Weaver was also one of the original directors of the 
     Municipal Assistance Corporation, which was formed to rescue 
     New York City from financial crisis in the 1970's.
       ``He was a catalyst with the Kennedys and then with 
     Johnson, forging new initiatives in housing and education,'' 
     said Walter E. Washington, the first elected Mayor of the 
     nation's capital.
       A portly, pedagogical man who wrote four books on urban 
     affairs, Dr. Weaver had made a name for himself in the 1930's 
     and 40's as an expert behind-the-scenes strategist in the 
     civil rights movement. ``Fight hard and legally,'' he said, 
     ``and don't blow your top.''
       As a part of the ``Black Cabinet'' in the administration of 
     President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one of a 
     group of blacks who specialized in housing, education and 
     employment. After being hired as race relations advisers in 
     various Federal agencies, they pressured and persuaded the 
     White House to provide more jobs, better educational 
     opportunities and equal rights.
       Dr. Weaver began in 1933 as an aide to Interior Harold L. 
     Ickes. He later served as a special assistant in the housing 
     division of the Works Progress Administration, the National 
     Defense Advisory Commission, the War Production Board and the 
     War Manpower Commission.
       Shortly before the 1940 election, he devised a strategy 
     that defused anger among blacks about Stephen T. Early, 
     President Roosevelt's press secretary. Arriving at 
     Pennsylvania Station in New York, Early lost his temper when 
     a line of police officers blocked his way. Early knocked one 
     of the officers, who happened to be black, to the ground. As 
     word of the incident spread, a White House adviser put 
     through a telephone call to Dr. Weaver in Washington.
       The aide, worried that the incident would cost Roosevelt 
     the black vote, told Dr. Weaver to find the other black 
     advisers and prepare a speech that would appeal to blacks for 
     the President to deliver the speech.
       Dr. Weaver said he doubted that he could find anyone in the 
     middle of the night, even though most of the others in the 
     ``Black Cabinet'' had been playing poker in his basement when 
     the phone rang. ``And anyway,'' he said, ``I don't think a 
     mere speech will do it. What we need right now is something 
     so dramatic that it will make the Negro voters forget all 
     about Steve Early and the Negro cop too.''
       Within 48 hours, Benjamin O. Davis Sr. was the first black 
     general in the Army; William H. Hastie was the first black 
     civilian aide to the Secretary of War, and Campbell C. 
     Johnson was the first high-ranking black aide to the head of 
     the Selective Service.
       Robert Clifton Weaver was born on Dec. 29, 1907, in 
     Washington. His father was a postal worker and his mother--
     who he said influenced his intellectual development--was the 
     daughter of the first black person to graduate from Harvard 
     with a degree in dentistry. When Dr. Weaver joined the 
     Kennedy Administration, whose Harvard connections extended to 
     the occupant of the Oval Office, he held more Harvard 
     degrees--three, including a doctorate in economics--than 
     anyone else in the administration's upper ranks.

[[Page 817]]

       In 1960, after serving as the New York State Rent 
     Commissioner, Dr. Weaver became the national chairman of the 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
     and President Kennedy sought Dr. Weaver's advice on civil 
     rights. The following year, the President appointed him 
     administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, a loose 
     combination of agencies that included the bureaucratic 
     components of what would eventually become H.U.D., including 
     the Federal Housing Administration to spur construction, the 
     Urban Renewal Administration to oversee slum clearance and 
     the Federal National Mortgage Association to line up money 
     for new housing.
       President Kennedy tried to have the agency raised to 
     Cabinet rank, but Congress balked. Southerners led an attack 
     against the appointment of a black to the Cabinet, and there 
     were charges that Dr. Weaver was an extremist. Kennedy 
     abandoned the idea of creating an urban affairs department.
       Five years later, when President Johnson revived the idea 
     and pushed it through Congress, Senators who had voted 
     against Dr. Weaver the first time around vote for him.
       Past Federal housing programs had largely dealt with 
     bricks-and-mortar policies. Dr. Weaver said Washington needed 
     to take a more philosophical approach. ``Creative federalism 
     stresses local initiative, local solutions to local 
     problems,'' he said.
       But, he added, ``where the obvious needs for action to meet 
     an urban problem are not being fulfilled, the Federal 
     Government has a responsibility at least to generate a 
     thorough awareness of the problem.''
       Dr. Weaver, who said that ``you cannot have physical 
     renewal without human renewal,'' pushed for better-looking 
     public housing by offering awards for design. He also 
     increased the amount of money for small businesses displaced 
     by urban renewal and revived the long-dormant idea of Federal 
     rent subsides for the elderly.
       Later in his life, he was a professor of urban affairs at 
     Hunter College, was a member of the Visiting Committee at the 
     School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon 
     University and held visiting professorships at Columbia 
     Teachers' College and the New York University School of 
     Education. He also served as a consultant to the Ford 
     Foundation and was the president of Baruch College in 
     Manhattan in 1969.
       His wife, Ella, died in 1991. Their son, Robert Jr., died 
     in 1962.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 20, 1997]

           Robert C. Weaver Dies; First Black Cabinet Member

                            (By Martin Weil)

       Robert C. Weaver, 89, who as the nation's first secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development was the first black person 
     to head a Cabinet agency, as well as one of the architects of 
     the Great Society, died July 17 at his home in Manhattan.
       He died in his sleep, according to a family friend. The 
     cause of death was not immediately known.
       Dr. Weaver, who was born and raised in Washington, was 
     regarded as an intellectual, both pragmatic and visionary, 
     who worked to improve the lives of blacks and other Americans 
     both by expanding their opportunities and by bettering their 
     communities.
       ``He put the bricks and mortar on President Johnson's 
     blueprint for a Great Society,'' HUD Secretary Andrew M. 
     Cuomo said in a statement.
       ``Robert Weaver got real urban legislation on the books and 
     nurtured our country's first commitment to improve the 
     quality of life in our nation's cities,'' Cuomo said.
       On Jan. 13, 1966, when President Lyndon B. Johnson 
     appointed the Harvard PhD and longtime federal and state 
     housing official to be the first HUD secretary, many 
     recognized that it was a moment both historic and symbolic.
       Johnson said he had considered more than 300 candidates and 
     had concluded that Dr. Weaver was ``the man for the job.''
       In an interview after Dr. Weaver's death, Walter E. 
     Washington, the District's first mayor elected under home 
     rule, who had worked with Dr. Weaver, called him ``a giant'' 
     and ``a man of great vision . . . integrity, passion and 
     commitment.'' Washington said, ``There was never a job that 
     was too large or one that was too small if he saw in it the 
     possibility of helping his fellow man.''
       Dr. Weaver was born Dec. 29, 1907, into the segregated 
     world that was then Washington. He once recalled 45-minute 
     streetcar rides that took him past schools for whites before 
     he reached his for blacks.
       He was descended from a former slave who had bought his 
     freedom in 1830. His father was a postal worker, and his 
     mother was the daughter of Robert Tanner Freeman, who was a 
     Harvard graduate and the first black person in the United 
     States to receive a doctorate in dentistry.
       A multitalented man, Dr. Weaver worked as an electrician 
     while attending Dunbar High School in Washington. After 
     graduation, he went to Harvard, where he majored in 
     economics, won the Boylston speaking prize and received his 
     bachelor's degree in 1929. He received a master's degree two 
     years later and a doctorate in economics in 1934.
       In 1933, after the watershed election of Franklin D. 
     Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one of the bright young 
     intellectuals who came to the capital to create and run the 
     New Deal. He spent 10 years in housing and labor recruitment 
     and training, detailed for part of that time as an adviser to 
     Interior Secretary Harold Ickes.
       He also worked in the National Defense Advisory Commission 
     and, during World War II, was director of the Negro Manpower 
     Service in the War Manpower Commission. During those years, 
     he also was prominent in what was known as Roosevelt's 
     informal Black Cabinet, working behind the scenes to improve 
     conditions and opportunities for blacks.
       In the closing years of the war, he was executive secretary 
     of the Chicago Mayor's Committee on Race Relations. During 
     the 1940s and early '50s, he taught at universities, worked 
     for philanthropic foundations and held a series of government 
     housing posts in New York.
       At the start of his administration, President John F. 
     Kennedy named him chief of what was then the principal 
     federal agency responsible for housing, the Housing and Home 
     Finance Agency. He was credited with drawing together and 
     unifying the efforts of what was regarded as a loose 
     confederation of offices, bureaus and departments.
       It was not until the Johnson administration that efforts to 
     raise the department to Cabinet level bore fruit.
       But throughout his tenure as the chief federal housing 
     official, it was Dr. Weaver who ``broadened the prespective'' 
     of government policy, said Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, executive 
     director of Black Leadership Forum Inc. and a former New York 
     state housing commissioner. She said Dr. Weaver moved policy 
     from a narrow focus on the living unit itself to include 
     community development, a more expansive view that encompassed 
     both ``housing and the environment around the housing.''
       As Dr. Weaver had expressed it, ``You cannot have physical 
     renewal without human renewal.''
       At the same time, he was known for his work for racial 
     justice and equality. By the 1960s, he had been active in the 
     struggle for decades. At the time of his appointment by 
     Kennedy, he was chairman of the NAACP.
       Once, in the early days of the struggle, he advised that 
     the best way to achieve equality was ``to fight hard--and 
     legally--and don't blow your top.''
       After leaving his Cabinet post at the end of the Johnson 
     administration, Dr. Weaver returned to New York, where he was 
     a teacher and a consultant. He headed Baruch College in 1969 
     and was one of the directors of the Municipal Assistance 
     Corp., which was set up to save the city from fiscal collapse 
     in the 1970s.
       He wrote, or contributed to, several books and held at 
     least 30 honorary degrees.
       His wife, Ella died in 1991, and their son, Robert Jr., 
     died in 1962.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 68. A bill for the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New 
York; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to 
recognize the immeasurable debt which we owe to a leading Soviet 
dissident. Dr. Yuri F. Orlov, a founding member of the Soviet chapter 
of Amnesty International and founder of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group 
(the first nation-wide organization in Soviet history to question 
government actions), who now lives in Ithaca, New York, is threatened 
by poverty. Yuri Orlov could not be stopped by the sinister forces of 
the Soviet Union and, no doubt, he will not be stopped by poverty. But 
I rise today in hopes that it will not come to that.
  Dr. Orlov's career as a dissident began while he was working at the 
famous Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow. At 
the Institute in 1956 he made a pro-democracy speech which cost him his 
position and forced him to leave Moscow. He was able to return in 1972, 
whereupon he began his most outspoken criticism of the Soviet regime.
  On September 13, 1973, in response to a government orchestrated-
public smear campaign against Andrei Sakharov, Orlov sent ``Thirteen 
Questions to Brezhnev,'' a letter which advocated freedom of the press 
and reform of the Soviet economy. One month later, he became a founding 
member of the Soviet chapter of Amnesty International. His criticism of 
the Soviet Union left him unemployed and under constant KGB 
surveillance, but he would not be silenced.
  In May, 1976 Dr. Orlov founded the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group to 
pressure the Soviet Union to honor the human rights obligations it had 
accepted under the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975. His leadership of 
the Helsinki

[[Page 818]]

Watch Group led to his arrest and, eventually, to a show trial in 1978. 
He was condemned to seven years in a labor camp and five years in 
exile.
  After having served his prison sentence, and while still in exile, 
Dr. Orlov was able to immigrate to the United States in 1986 in an 
exchange arranged by the Reagan Administration. A captured Soviet spy 
was returned in exchange for the release of Dr. Orlov and a writer for 
U.S. News & World Report who had been arrested in Moscow, Nicholas 
Daniloff.
  Since then, Dr. Orlov has served as a senior scientist at Cornell 
University in the Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies. Now that he is 
74 years old, he is turning his thoughts to retirement. Unfortunately, 
since he has only been in the United States for 12 years, his 
retirement income from the Cornell pension plus Social Security will be 
insufficient: only a fraction of what Cornell faculty of comparable 
distinction now get at retirement.
  His scientific colleagues, Nobel physicist Dr. Hans A. Bethe, Kurt 
Gottfried of Cornell, and Sidney Drell of Stanford, have made concerted 
efforts to raise support for Dr. Orlov's retirement, but they are in 
further need.
  To this end, I have agreed to assist these notable scientists in 
their endeavor to secure a more appropriate recompense for this heroic 
dissident. That is the purpose that brings me here to the Senate floor 
today, on the first day of the 106th Congress, to introduce a bill on 
Dr. Orlov's behalf.
  To understand Dr. Orlov's contributions to ending the Cold War, I 
would draw my colleagues attention to his autobiography, Dangerous 
Thoughts: Memoirs of a Russian Life. It captures the fear extant in 
Soviet society and the courage of men like Orlov, Sakharov, Sharansky, 
Solzhenitsyn, and others who defied the Soviet regime. Dr. Orlov, who 
spent 7 years in a labor camp and two years in Siberian exile, never 
ceased protesting against oppression. Despite deteriorating health and 
the harsh conditions of the camp, Dr. Orlov smuggled out messages in 
support of basic rights and nuclear arms control. His bravery and that 
of his dissident colleagues played no small role in the dissolution of 
the Soviet Union. I am sure many would agree that we owe them a 
tremendous debt. This then is a call to all those who agree with that 
proposition. Dr. Orlov is now in need; please join our endeavor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 68

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DR. YURI F. ORLOV OF ITHACA, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York, shall be deemed 
     an annuitant as defined under section 8331(9) of title 5, 
     United States Code, and shall be eligible to receive an 
     annuity.
       (b) Computation.--For purposes of computing the annuity 
     described under subsection (a), Dr. Yuri F. Orlov shall be 
     deemed to--
       (1) have performed 40 years of creditable service as a 
     Federal employee; and
       (2) received pay at the maximum rate payable for a position 
     above GS-15 of the General Schedule (as in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act) for 3 consecutive years of such 
     creditable service.
       (c) Contributions.--No person shall be required to make any 
     contribution with respect to the annuity described under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management shall--
       (1) apply the provisions of chapter 83 of title 5, United 
     States Code (including provisions relating to cost-of-living-
     adjustments and survivor annuity benefits) to the annuity 
     described under subsection (a) to the greatest extent 
     practicable; and
       (2) make the first payment of such annuity no later than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 69. A bill to make available funds under the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 to provide scholarships for nationals of any of the 
independent states of the former Soviet Union to undertake doctoral 
graduate study in the social sciences; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                         THE NIS EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIS 
Education Act. For 75 years academic freedom was squelched in the 
Soviet Union and the tools to build a democratic society were lost to 
its successor states. Thankfully, that is now passed. The Russians have 
the right to claim that they freed their own country from the horrors 
of a decayed Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. The Russian people and 
their leaders have something about which to be proud.
  I rise in that spirit to offer a bill that is simple in both premise 
and purpose: build democratic leaders of the NIS for the future through 
education. The NIS Education Act will partially fund graduate education 
in the social sciences for 500 students from the NIS during the next 
five years. The benefits of education and exposure to the United States 
will be long lasting.
  We want to give these students from the NIS a chance to see American 
democracy and learn the tools to improve their own society. Indeed, for 
many it will be their first chance to visit the world's oldest 
democracy; to see the promise that democracy offers; and to judge its 
fruits for themselves. As one of our most famous visitors, Alexis de 
Tocqueville, wrote:

       Let us look to America, not in order to make a servile copy 
     of the institutions that she has established, but to gain a 
     clearer view of the polity that will be the best for us; let 
     us look there less to find examples than instruction; let us 
     borrow from her the principles, rather than the details, of 
     her laws . . . the principles on which the American 
     constitutions rest, those principles of order, of the balance 
     of powers, of true liberty, of deep and sincere respect for 
     right, are indispensable to all republics. . . .

  In 1948 the United States instituted the now famous Marshall Plan 
which included among its many provisions a fund for technical 
assistance. Part of this fund included the ``productivity campaign'' 
which was designed to bring European businessmen and labor 
representatives here to learn American methods of production. During 
the Plan's three years, over 6,000 Europeans came to the United States 
to study U.S. production. Though the funding for this part of the plan 
was less than one-half of one percent of all the Marshall Plan aid, its 
impact was far greater. The impact of the NIS Education Act may also be 
great.
  We must note here the current state of Russia's affairs: it is 
deplorable. Despite this situation, last spring the United States 
Senate voted to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
Throughout the elements of the Russian political system NATO expansion 
was viewed as a hostile act they will have to defend against; and they 
have said if they have to defend their territory, they will do so with 
nuclear weapons; that is all they have left.
  The distrust born from NATO expansion will not fade quickly. Let us 
hope that the NIS Education Act will provide individuals from Russia 
and the other NIS the opportunity to see that we Americans do not hope 
for Russia's demise and isolation. Perhaps we can dispel the betrayal 
they may feel as a result of NATO enlargement, and give them the tools 
to further develop their own democracies.
  Beyond that, the importance of training the next generation of social 
scientists in the NIS is immeasurable. It is this generation that will 
revitalize the universities, teaching the next generation economics, 
sociology and other disciplines. It is this generation of social 
scientists who will be prepared to enter their Governments armed with 
new ideas and new ways of thinking different from the status quo; they 
will bring their new knowledge and standards, their linkages to the 
United States back to their own countries, and they will have the best 
opportunity to influence change there.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 69

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page 819]]



     SECTION 1. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR NATIONALS OF THE INDEPENDENT 
                   STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), the President 
     is authorized to provide scholarships under chapter 11 of 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to 
     assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet 
     Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) for 100 nationals of the 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union (as defined in 
     section 3 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801)) who 
     seek to commence graduate study in a six-year program in any 
     field of social science.
       (2) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph 
     (1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision 
     of law.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Non-federal share.--The President shall require that 
     not less than 20 percent of the costs of each student's 
     doctoral study be provided from non-Federal sources.
       (2) Requirement of home country services.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, any student supported under this 
     section who does not perform after graduation at least one 
     year of service in the student's home country for each year 
     of study supported under this section shall not be eligible 
     to be issued a visa to be admitted to the United States.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to assistance to the 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295 
     et seq.) for fiscal years 2000 through 2009, the following 
     amounts are authorized to be available to carry out 
     subsection (a):
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100 
     scholarships.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200 
     scholarships.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300 
     scholarships.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400 
     scholarships.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500 
     scholarships.
       (6) For fiscal year 2005, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500 
     scholarships.
       (7) For fiscal year 2006, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400 
     scholarships.
       (8) For fiscal year 2007, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300 
     scholarships.
       (9) For fiscal year 2008, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200 
     scholarships.
       (10) For fiscal year 2009, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100 
     scholarships.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 70. A bill to require the establishment of a Federal task force on 
Regional Threats to International Security; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


 the prevention and deterrence of international conflict (predict) act 
                                of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the 
administration an incentive for developing a more coherent foreign 
policy by pooling the defense, diplomatic, intelligence, and economic 
resources of the federal government.
  I have labeled this bill the Prevention and Deterrence of 
International Conflict Act--``PREDICT''--because the Clinton 
Administration failed or willfully suspended its ability to anticipate 
a string of foreign calamities last year.
  The 1998 calendar of global surprises for the United States revealed 
the continuing challenge to this administration of analyzing evidence 
adequately for the President to act against the aggressive military 
actions of India, Pakistan, North Korea, Yugoslavia, and Iraq.
  Although we had satellite images and early warning signs, the second 
series of nuclear explosions by India in May eluded the detection of 
the intelligence authorities.
  Although we had the campaign pledges of India's Prime Minister to 
expand the country's nuclear program, no one took them as an omen of 
action.
  Although we had differing agency assessments of whether the export of 
commercial satellite technologies posed the risk of improving China's 
military communications capabilities, the president never saw them.
  Although Pentagon officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee 
on August 24, 1998 that the intelligence community could detect in 
advance any launching of a multiple-stage rocket by North Korea, they 
professed surprise as a Taepo Dong missile soared over Japan seven days 
later.
  And although we had indicators that the simmering conflict in Kosovo 
could unravel into a major Balkan security crisis, we did not know who 
led or supplied the provincial insurgency movement.
  Furthermore, before finally approving military action against Iraq 
last month, the White House had lurched towards two previous strikes 
only to call off the missiles after Saddam Hussein opened his seven-
year old script to repeat the hollow lines that he would cooperate with 
the U.N. on his own terms in his own time.
  These examples highlight a pattern of fragmentation in the decision-
making apparatus of the Executive Branch. Information that could tilt 
the course of a crisis too often remains hidden or undiscovered in the 
flow of advice to the White House.
  Beyond this disjointed process of making policy, the other critical 
issue tying together these episodes of tension centers on the threat of 
weapons proliferation fueled by unresolved civil conflicts or the 
ambitions of regional tyrants.
  The uncertain political status of the territory of Kashmir, for 
example, served as a convenient excuse for Indian officials to justify 
their nuclear testing last Spring. At the same time, the Pakistanis 
cited national prestige and the need to stabilize the governing 
coalition, rather than any threat of attack, in explaining their 
nuclear response to India's provocation.
  In both of these cases, political judgments overshadowed sober 
considerations of whether the two nations posed immediate military 
risks to one another.
  Yet China's hunger for technology, Mr. President, derives less from 
an ongoing civil conflict than it does from a military establishment 
eager to develop the precision capabilities used by the United States 
during the Persian Gulf War.
  These capabilities, in turn, will gradually advance Beijing's quest 
to displace the United States and Japan as the dominant Asia-Pacific 
power.
  The PREDICT bill, therefore, brings together the broad range of 
foreign policy experts throughout the government into one Federal Task 
Force on Regional Threats to International Security. The Federal Task 
Force would include representatives of the Departments of State, 
Defense, and Commerce, as well as military and foreign intelligence 
organizations, to advise the president in three categories:
  How the United States can foster diplomatic resolutions of regional 
disputes that increase the risk of weapons proliferation;
  Trade and investment programs to promote the market-based development 
of countries that pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction;
  And the implementation of intelligence analysis procedures to ensure 
that the president has all of the data necessary before he makes any 
decision regarding this category of arms.
  The President must establish the Task Force no later than 60 days 
after the effective date of the law, and the panel's authority would 
expire on October 1, 2001 unless an executive order or an act of 
Congress renews the operating charter.
  PREDICT, therefore, outlines a clear and comprehensive process for 
foreign policy development without prejudging what steps the President 
should take. He must create the Task Force. He must consider the 
information that it presents, and he must determine whether to accept 
it. After two years, both the administration and Congress can judge the 
record of the Task Force to decide whether it should continue to 
function.
  What this legislation proposes that does not exist is an integrated 
advisory body to analyze the military, diplomatic, and economic options 
available to the president for controlling regional conflicts and the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  Furthermore, the Task Force deliberately includes intelligence 
representatives so that policy options reflect the most updated 
information on the intentions of foreign leaders and the capabilities 
of their armed forces.
  A comprehensive perspective remains central to the execution of 
prudent foreign policies. The administration needs to harness the 
talent and expertise of the federal government to ensure that

[[Page 820]]

the regional civil, military, and political disputes fostering weapons 
proliferation do not present a sustained threat to international 
security. For this compelling reason, I urge Congress to renew 
America's national security organizations by passing the PREDICT Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 71. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a 
presumption of service-connection for certain veterans with Hepatitis 
C, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                   Hepatitis C Veterans' Legislation

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I 
introduced late in the 105th Congress to address a serious health 
concern for veterans--specifically the health threat posed by the 
Hepatitis C virus.
  The legislation I am introducing today would make Hepatitis C a 
service-connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus 
can be treated by the VA. The bill will establish a presumption of 
service connection for veterans with Hepatitis C, meaning that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs will assume that this condition was 
incurred or aggravated in military service, provided that certain 
conditions are met.
  Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood 
during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were 
exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent 
hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with 
unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an 
unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a 
health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment 
for this condition at VA facilities.
  I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were 
exposed to Hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and 
other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many 
``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they 
can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that 
Hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until 
recently.
  Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and 
other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of Hepatitis C. 
In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is 
infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that 
10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam Veterans are Hepatitis C 
positive.
  Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus 
has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection 
with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will 
develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For 
many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, 
transplants, liver cancer, and death.
  And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and 
often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of 
the estimated four million Americans with Hepatitis C know they have 
it, yet with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent 
may have the virus eradicated.
  Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that 
they have liver disease caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and 
treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. 
However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA 
because they must meet a standard that is virtually impossible to meet 
in order to establish a service connection for their condition--this in 
spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other 
veterans got this disease serving their country.
  Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were 
exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while 
in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is 
transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and 
other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care 
providers in the services were likely at increased risk as well, and 
may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated.
  Researchers have discovered that Hepatitis C was widespread in 
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from 
the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans 
organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I 
worked closely to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans 
were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion 
or from working as a medic around combat injuries.
  The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch 22 
situation: the VA will not introduce any flexibility into their 
established service connection requirements--and many veterans cannot 
prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to 
detect it did not until recently. Without legislative authority to 
treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C 
in service will not get the VA health care testing or treatment they 
need.
  Mr. President, I believe the government will actually save money in 
the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The 
alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease 
and the associated complications, or other disorders.s
  Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve 
or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work 
cut out for us, and further study is required. However, there is 
already a substantial body of research on the relationship between 
Hepatitis C and military service. While further research is being 
conducted, we should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much 
for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they 
deserve.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within 
and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of 
veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, 
half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these 
veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others 
may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we 
need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high 
rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the 
next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part 
of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for 
veterans entering the VA health system.''
  Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and 
women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace 
shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have 
earned.
  We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront 
this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental 
challenge cannot be written overnight. It will require the long-term 
commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to 
address this health concern.
  I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort, 
and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the 
VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet 
this emerging challenge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 72. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to restore the 
eligibility of veterans for benefits resulting from injury or disease 
attributable to the use of tobacco products during a period of military 
service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                          va tobacco benefits

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will restore an important benefit for our nation's veterans--disability 
compensation benefits for those with tobacco-related illnesses or 
disabilities.
  The President's budget proposal for FY99 restricted disability 
compensation benefits for tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung 
cancer. I might ask, once we start restricting service-

[[Page 821]]

related disabilities treated through the VA, where does it end? I am 
very concerned that the VA will become a target for further erosions of 
veterans benefits. The VA is already having difficulty making good on 
its promise to provide essential benefits to veterans. What benefit 
will be repealed next?
  Some may argue that military personnel made the decision to smoke. 
Nobody forced them. But this ignores that fact that these choices were 
facilitated, and perhaps even encouraged, by the inclusion of free 
cigarettes in individual supply kits and discounts on tobacco products. 
Many military personnel may have smoked for the first time while on 
active duty.
  That is why I have fought to restore veterans disability compensation 
for tobacco-related illnesses and disability--because I believe that 
Congress circumvented the process and undermined fairness when it 
repealed this benefit to fund the ISTEA legislation.
  Mr. President, there should have been a full airing of this issue 
before we voted to rescind the benefit. There was little debate on the 
Senate floor on this matter. This is not how those brave Americans who 
sacrificed for freedom should be treated by the government they fought 
to preserve.
  During the Senate's consideration of the FY99 Budget Resolution, I 
opposed efforts to repeal the benefit and voted for an amendment to 
sustain it. In addition, I supported an amendment submitted by Senator 
McCain to the tobacco bill providing $600 million over five years to 
veterans for smoking-related diseases and health care. Finally, during 
the Senate's consideration of the FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations Act, I 
supported an amendment to restore the benefit. Unfortunately, this 
amendment was rejected 54-40. I continue to believe we should debate 
the matter fully, we should have a vote, and we should pass legislation 
that will right this wrong.
  We must not ignore the fact that the military has been one of the 
largest distributors of tobacco products for decades. The military 
glamorized the use of tobacco and distributed free cigarettes during 
World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. We cannot turn a 
blind eye to this lethal legacy. We must not turn our backs on those 
who continue to suffer the consequences of their service. That is why I 
hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort, and 
restore this important benefit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 73. A bill to make available funds under the Mutual Educational 
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 to provide Fulbright scholarships for 
Cuban nationals to undertake graduate study in the social sciences; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


               FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
authorize funding for Cuban nationals for the Fulbright Educational 
Exchange Program so that they may come to the United States for 
graduate study.
  The world is a changed place. The Soviet Union dissolved almost a 
decade ago, and since then democracy has replaced totalitarianism in 
Eastern Europe. Since the demise of its sponsor, the Soviet Union, and 
the disappearance of Soviet subsidies, Cuba has had to change to 
survive. In time, the winds of democracy sweeping the globe will reach 
the shores of Cuba.
  We learned from the cold war that one of the most subversive acts in 
that ideological conflict was exposing communists to the West. In his 
lucid chronicle of the demise of the Soviet Union, Michael Dobbs writes 
in Down with Big Brother: The Fall of the Soviet Empire,

       A turning point in [Boris] Yeltsin's intellectual 
     development occurred during his first visit to the United 
     States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit 
     to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of 
     aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every 
     conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a 
     dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him. For Yeltsin, 
     like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this 
     was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like 
     the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was 
     impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A 
     cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most 
     Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without 
     standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively 
     displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of 
     communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite, 
     a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale 
     assault on the senses.
       What we saw in that supermarket was no less amazing than 
     America itself,'' recalled Lev Sukhanov, who accompanied 
     Yeltsin on his trip to the United States and shared his sense 
     of shock and dismay at the gap in living standards between 
     the two superpowers. ``I think it is quite likely that the 
     last prop of Yeltsin's Bolshevik consciousness finally 
     collapsed after Houston. His decision to leave the party and 
     join the struggle for supreme power in Russia may have 
     ripened irrevocably at that moment of mental confusion.

  The young people of Cuba are that country's future. As such what they 
learn now will help shape a post-Castro Cuba. Since its inception in 
1947, at the suggestion of Senator J. William Fulbright, the Fulbright 
Educational Exchange Program has sent nearly 82,000 Americans abroad 
and provided 138,000 foreign students and professors with the 
opportunity to come to the United States for study--to live here, to 
understand our great country, and return to their own nations so 
enriched. Nearly 50 years ago they sent me off to the London School of 
Economics. I left the United States untouched by war to live in Europe 
as it climbed out of its ruins. In London, I learned from experience 
Seymour Martin Lipset's dictum, ``He who knows only one country knows 
no country.'' Use the simple analogy of eyesight: it takes two eyes to 
provide perspective. It was a seminal time for the world and for me. 
This bill will offer that opportunity to Cubans to study in the United 
States, as I studied in London.
  Fidel Castro will not live forever--it is time to get ready for an 
end game. Now is the time to start showing the people of Cuba, 
especially the young people, how the United States works and how their 
country might change. So let us bring them here and not act like it's 
the middle of the Cold War. Let us bring them to the United States and 
offer them education and a chance to see the world's oldest democracy 
in action. We need to begin now to expose future leaders of Cuba to the 
United States. For, as Senator Fulbright observed,

       The vital mortar to seal the bricks of world order is 
     education across international boundaries, not with the 
     expectation that knowledge would make us love each other, but 
     in the hope that it would encourage empathy between nations, 
     and foster the emergence of leaders whose sense of other 
     nations and cultures would enable them to shape specific 
     policies based on tolerance and rational restraint.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 73

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to provide 
     scholarships under the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program in 
     section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452) for nationals of Cuba who seek 
     to undertake graduate study in public health, public policy, 
     economics, law, or other field of social science.
       (2) Prohibition.--No official of the Cuban government, or 
     any member of the immediate family of the official, shall be 
     eligible to receive a scholarship under paragraph (1).
       (3) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph 
     (1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision 
     of law.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004, the following amounts are authorized 
     to be available to carry out subsection (a):
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $1,400,000 for not to exceed 20 
     scholarships.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $1,750,000 for not to exceed 25 
     scholarships.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.

[[Page 822]]

       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 74. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                         Paycheck Fairness Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am privileged to join with my colleague 
Senator Tom Daschle to introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Early in the next century, women--for the first time ever--will 
outnumber men in the United States workplace. In 1965, women held 35 
percent of all jobs. That has grown to more than 46 percent today. And 
in a few years, women will make up a majority of the workforce.
  Fortunately, there are more business and career opportunities for 
women today than there were thirty years ago. Unlike 1965, federal, 
state, and private sector programs now offer women many opportunities 
to choose their own futures. Working women also have opportunities to 
gain the knowledge and skills to achieve their own economic security.
  But despite these gains, working women still face a unique 
challenge--achieving pay equity. The average woman earns 74 cents for 
every dollar that the average man earns. This amounts to a woman 
earning $8,434 less than a man over the course of one year and earning 
more than a quarter of a million dollars less over the course of a 
career.
  We must correct this gross inequality, and we must correct it now.
  How is this possible with our federal laws prohibiting 
discrimination? It is possible because we in Congress have failed to 
protect one of the most fundamental human rights--the right to be paid 
fairly for an honest day's work.
  Unfortunately, our laws ignore wage discrimination against women, 
which continues to fester like a cancer in work places across the 
country. The Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 would close this legal 
loophole by addressing the problem of pay inequality by redressing past 
discrimination and increasing enforcement against future abuses.
  I do not pretend that this Act will solve all the problems women face 
in the work place. But it is an essential piece of the puzzle. Equal 
pay for equal work is often a subtle problem that is difficult to 
combat. And, it does not stand alone as an issue that woman face in the 
workplace. It is deeply intertwined with the problem of unequal 
opportunity. Closing this loophole is not enough if we fail to provide 
the opportunity for women to reach high paying positions.
  The government, by itself, cannot change the attitudes and 
perceptions of individuals and private businesses in hiring and 
advancing women, but it can set an example. Certainly President Clinton 
has shown great leadership by appointing an unprecedented number of 
women to his administration. In my home state of Vermont, Major General 
Martha Rainville has been appointed Adjutant General of the Vermont 
National Guard--the first woman in the country to hold this prestigious 
position.
  Vermont is also a leader in providing pay equity. According to the 
Institute for Women's Policy Research, Vermont ranks second in 
providing equal pay. Even with this ranking, the average woman in 
Vermont still is making less than 82 cents for every dollar that the 
average man makes in Vermont. We must work in the Senate and in the 
workplace to close this gap.
  We are all familiar with the glass ceiling which prevents women from 
advancing in the workplace. However, woman are also facing a glass 
wall--they are unable to achieve equal pay for equal work. Women cannot 
break the glass ceiling until the wall comes down.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is one step to remedy this problem and 
bring down the glass wall. This Act will strengthen enforcement of the 
Equal Pay Act, increase penalties for violations, and permit employees 
to openly discuss their wages with coworkers without fear of 
retaliation by their employers.
  I understand that this bill will not solve all of the problems of pay 
inequity, but it will close legal loopholes that allow employers to 
routinely underpay women. By closing these loopholes, we will help 
women achieve better economic security and provide them with more 
opportunities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 75. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax 
on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.


                 estate and gift tax repeal act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 76. A bill to phase-out and repeal the Federal estate and gift 
taxes and the tax on generational-skipping transfers; to the Committee 
on Finance.


               Estate and Gift Tax Phase-Out Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 77. A bill to increase the unified estate and gift tax credit to 
exempt small businesses and farmers from estate taxes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


         farmer and entrepreneur estate tax relief act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 78. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 to increase 
the gift tax exclusion to $25,000; to the Committee on Finance.


                           gift tax exclusion

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of 
myself and Senators Hagel, Helms and Roberts a package of legislation 
intended to minimize or eliminate the burden that estate and gift taxes 
place on our economy. The estate tax hinders entrepreneurial activity 
and job creation in many sectors of our economy. Despite the fact that 
my bills would help all Americans who face this onerous tax, I come to 
the estate tax debate because of my interest in American agriculture.
  As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have held hearings 
on the impact of the estate tax on farmers and ranchers. The effects of 
inheritance taxes are fare reaching in the agricultural community. 
Citing personal experiences, witnesses described how the estate tax 
discourages savings, capital investment and job formation.
  One such story came from a Hoosier, Mr. Woody Barton. He is a fifth 
generation tree farmer living in the house his great grandparents built 
in 1885. I visited his 300 acres of forested property last October and 
can attest to its beauty. Typical of many farmers, Mr. Barton is over 
65 years old and wants to leave this legacy to his four children. But 
he fears that the estate tax may cause his children to strip the timber 
and then sell the land in order to pay the estate tax bill. His 
grandmother logged a portion of the land in 1939 to pay the debts that 
came from the death of her husband. In essence, each generation must 
buy back the hard work and dedication of their ancestors from the 
federal government. Mr. Barton believes, and I agree, that the actions 
of Congress have more impact on the outcome of his family's land than 
his own planning and investment. This should not be the case.
  The estate and gift tax falls disproportionately hard on our 
agricultural producers. Ninety-five percent of farms and ranch 
operations are sole proprietorships or family partnerships, subjecting 
a vast majority of these businesses to the threat of inheritance taxes. 
According to USDA figures, farmers are six times more likely to face 
inheritance taxes than other Americans. And commercial farm estates--
those core farms that produce 85 percent of our nation's agricultural 
products--are fifteen times more likely

[[Page 823]]

to pay inheritance taxes than other individuals.
  This hardship will only get worse as the agricultural community gets 
older, with the average farmer about to have a 60th birthday. Many 
farmers will shortly confront estate and gift taxes when they pass 
their farm onto the next generation. Recently, the USDA estimated that 
between 1992 and 2002, more than 500,000 farmers will retire. Only half 
of those positions will be replaced by young farmers. Demographic 
studies indicate that a quarter of all farmers could confront the 
inheritance tax during the next 20 years.
  To combat this problem, today I offer several legislative 
alternatives to provide relief to those impacted by this tax. My first 
bill would repeal the estate and gift taxes outright. My second bill 
would phase out the estate tax over five years by gradually raising the 
unified credit each year until the tax is repealed after the fifth 
year. My third bill would immediately raise the effective unified 
credit to $5 million in an effort to address the disproportionate 
burden that the estate tax places on farmers and small businesses. My 
last bill would raise the gift tax exemption from $10,000 to $25,000.
  I believe the best option is a simple repeal of the estate tax. I am 
hopeful that during this Congress, as members become more aware of the 
effects of this tax, we can eliminate it from the tax code. However, 
even if the estate tax is not repealed, the unified credit must be 
raised significantly. Despite our most recent success in raising the 
exemption level, inflation has caused a growing percentage of estates 
to be subjected to the estate tax. My second bill is intended to 
highlight this point and provide a gradual path to repeal.
  My third bill focuses on relieving the estate tax burden that falls 
disproportionately on farmers and small business owners. By raising the 
exemption amount to $5 million, 96 percent of estates with farm assets 
and 90 percent of estates with non-corporate business assets would not 
have to pay estate taxes, according to the IRS.
  The final bill in this package would raise the gift tax exemption 
from $10,000 to $25,000. This level has not been adjusted since 1982. 
Over the years, the inflation has eroded this exemption amount, and I 
believe this level must be raised to provide Americans with an 
additional tool for passing productive assets to the next generation.
  Despite its modest beginnings in 1916, the estate tax has mushroomed 
into an exorbitant tax on death that discourages savings, economic 
growth and job formation by blocking the accumulation of 
entrepreneurial capital and by breaking up family businesses and farms. 
With the highest marginal rate at 55 percent, more than half of an 
estate can go directly to the government. By the time the inheritance 
tax is levied on families, their assets have already been taxed at 
least once. This form of double taxation violates perceptions of 
fairness in our tax system.
  If we are sincere about boosting economic growth, we must consider 
what effect the estate tax has on a business owner deciding whether to 
invest in new capital goods or hire a new employee. The Heritage 
Foundation estimates that repealing the estate tax would annually boost 
our economic output by $11 billion, create 145,000 new jobs and raise 
personal income by $8 billion. These figures underscore the current 
weight of this tax on our economy.
  One might expect that for all the economic disincentives caused by 
the estate tax, it must at least provide a sizable contribution to the 
U.S. Treasury. But in reality, the estate tax only accounts for about 1 
percent of federal taxes. It cannot be justified as an indispensable 
revenue raiser. Given the blow delivered to job formation and economic 
growth, the estate tax may even cost the Treasury money. Our nation's 
ability to create new jobs, new opportunities and wealth is damaged as 
a result of our insistence on collecting a tax that earns less than 1 
percent of our revenue.
  But this tax affects more than just the national economy. It affects 
how we as a nation think about community, family and work. Small 
businesses and farms represent much more than assets. They represent 
years of toil and entrepreneurial risk taking. They also represent the 
hopes that families have for their children. Part of the American Dream 
has always been to build up a business, farm or ranch so that economic 
opportunities and a way of life can be passed on to one's children and 
grandchildren.
  I know first-hand about the dangers of this tax to agriculture. My 
father died when I was 24, leaving his 604-acre farm in Marion County, 
Indiana, to his family. I helped manage the farm, which had built up 
considerable debts during my father's illness. Fortunately, after a 
number of years, we were successful in working out the financial 
problems and repaying the money. We were lucky. That farm remains in 
our family because I have been practicing active estate planning and 
execution of the plan along with profitable farming for each of the 
last 40 years. But many of today's farmers and small business owners 
are not so fortunate. Only about 30 percent of businesses are 
transferred from parent to child, and only about 12 percent of 
businesses make it to a grandchild.
  Mr. President, these bills I have introduced will provide 
policymakers with a range of options as they seek to mitigate the 
burdens of the estate tax. Doing so will lead to expanded investment 
incentives and job creation and will reinvigorate an important part of 
the American Dream. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in the 
effort to free small businesses, family farms and our economy from this 
counterproductive tax. I ask unanimous consent that my four bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 75

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Estate and Gift Tax Repeal 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages, and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Congress should work toward reforming the entire 
     Federal tax code to end its bias against savings and 
     eliminate double taxation.
       (5) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth. The 
     estate tax is harmful to the economy because of its high 
     marginal rates and its multiple taxation of income.
       (6) Abolishing the estate tax would restore a measure of 
     fairness to the Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of labor to the next generation without 
     realizing a taxable event.
       (7) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and 
     generation-skipping transfers made, after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as 
     practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical 
     and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     which are necessary to reflect throughout

[[Page 824]]

     such Code the changes in the substantive provisions of law 
     made by this Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 76

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Estate and Gift Tax Phase-
     Out Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages, and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth.
       (5) Abolishing the estate tax would restore a measure of 
     fairness to the Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of labor to the next generation without 
     realizing a taxable event.
       (6) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.

     SEC. 3. PHASE-OUT OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES THROUGH INCREASE 
                   IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount) 
     is amended to read as follows:

The applicable exclusion amount is:ts dying, and gifts made, during:
      2000..................................................$1,000,000 
      2001..................................................$1,500,000 
      2002..................................................$2,000,000 
      2003..................................................$2,500,000 
      2004...............................................$5,000,000.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts 
     made, after December 31, 1997.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and 
     generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2004.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall not later than 90 
     days after the effective date of this section, submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any 
     technical and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code 
     the changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 77

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Farmer and Entrepreneur 
     Estate Tax Relief Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Congress should work toward reforming the entire 
     Federal tax code to end its bias against savings.
       (5) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth. The 
     estate tax is harmful to the economy because of its high 
     marginal rates and its multiple taxation of income.
       (6) The repeal of the estate tax would increase the growth 
     of the small business sector, which creates a majority of new 
     jobs in our Nation. Estimates indicate that as many as 70 
     percent of small businesses do not make it to a second 
     generation and nearly 90 percent do not make it to a third.
       (7) Eliminating the estate tax would lift the compliance 
     burden from farmers and family businesses. On average, 
     family-owned businesses spent over $33,000 on accountants, 
     lawyers, and financial experts in complying with the estate 
     tax laws over a 6.5-year period.
       (8) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.
       (9) As the average age of farmers approaches 60 years, it 
     is estimated that a quarter of all farmers could confront the 
     estate tax over the next 20 years. The auctioning of these 
     productive assets to finance tax liabilities destroys jobs 
     and harms the economy.
       (10) Abolishing the estate taxes would restore a measure of 
     fairness to our Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of the labor to the next generation 
     without realizing a taxable event.
       (11) Despite this heavy burden on entrepreneurs, farmers, 
     and our entire economy, estate and gift taxes collect only 
     about 1 percent of our Federal tax revenues. In fact, the 
     estate tax may not raise any revenue at all, because more 
     income tax is lost from individuals attempting to avoid 
     estate taxes than is ultimately collected at death.
       (12) Repealing estate and gift taxes is supported by the 
     White House Conference on Small Business, the Kemp Commission 
     on Tax Reform, and 60 small business advocacy organizations.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2000 or 
     thereafter'',
       (2) by striking ``$675,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000'', 
     and
       (3) by striking all matter beginning with the item relating 
     to 2002 and 2003 through the end of the table.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts 
     made, after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 78

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GIFT TAX EXCLUSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 2503(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to exclusions from gifts) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$25,000'',
       (2) by striking ``1998'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``2000'', and
       (3) by striking ``1997'' in paragraph (2)(B) and inserting 
     ``1999''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 79. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
require disclosure of certain disbursements made for electioneering 
communications, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


 advancing truth and accountability in campaign communications act of 
                                  1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of 
myself and Mr. Jeffords the Advancing Truth and Accountability in 
Campaign Communications Act of 1999, or ATACC, which represents an 
effort to attack the problem of stealth advocacy advertising in federal 
elections and shine the spotlight of disclosure on those who would 
attempt to fly under the radar screen of our campaign finance laws.
  Before I begin, I want to thank and commend Senator Jeffords for all 
his valuable input and hard work in helping to craft this legislation, 
which was originally introduced as an amendment last year to the 
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. And I want to thank 
Senators McCain and Feingold themselves, who encouraged our efforts.
  In the past several elections, we've seen a proliferation of 
advertisements over the airwaves which cloak themselves in the 
innocuous guise of ``issue

[[Page 825]]

advocacy'', or voter education. The sponsors of these ads would have us 
believe that they are performing a public service by running these ads, 
and do not intend for them to affect the outcome of federal elections. 
They claim that because they do not use words like ``vote for'', or 
``vote against'', they are exempt from federal campaign finance laws. 
They even argue that no one has the right simply to know who is 
sponsoring the ads.
  And yet, these ads say things like: ``Mr. X promised he'd be 
different. But he's just another Washington politician. Why during the 
last year alone, he has taken over $260,000 from corporate special 
interest groups. . . . But is he listening to us anymore?''
  I defy anyone to argue, with a straight face, that that message is 
anything other than a blatant attempt to influence a federal election. 
And yet, under current law, any person, labor union, or corporation, 
has a right to run such ads without even disclosing the most basic 
information, such as who they are, or how much they are spending. And 
that is just plain wrong.
  During the 1996 elections, the Annenberg Public Policy Center 
estimates that anywhere between $135 million and $150 million was spent 
by third party groups not associated with candidates' campaigns on such 
radio and television ads. I say ``estimates'' because we really don't 
know for sure. There is no official record kept, nor is anyone required 
to submit the kind of information needed to keep such records.
  And lest there be any doubt of the real intent of these ads, the 
Annenburg Report found that nearly 87 percent of them mentioned a 
candidate for office by name, and over 41 percent were seen by the 
public as ``pure attack'' ads--that's the highest percentage recorded 
among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time 
segments accorded candidates, and news programs.
  If anything, not surprisingly, the problem got worse in the 1997-1998 
election cycle. The Annenberg Center has completed their study of this 
time period, and has determined that issue ad spending in the last 
cycle doubled the amount spent in 1995 through 1996--to total between 
$275 and $340 million. Of those ads, over 53 percent mentioned 
candidates by name during the cycle--a number which rose to over 80 
percent in the final two months. Further, 51.5 percent of issue ads 
aired after September 1, 1998, were pure attack ads in terms of their 
content. At least 77 groups ran broadcast issue ads in 1997 and 1998.
  As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has stated, 
``(These are) conservative number(s), since there is no disclosure of 
(these) media buys or other spending.'' To put this in perspective, 
1998 was the first billion dollar election--meaning that about a 
quarter of the money spent was on what I call ``stealth advocacy'' 
advertising. One quarter of all the money spent--which the Annenberg 
Center estimates is roughly equivalent to what candidates themselves 
spent on their own campaigns--was unaccounted for, unreportable and 
unregulated in any fashion. And, as Norm Ornstein has pointed out, 1998 
was an ``off-year'', and ``without campaign reform, we can probably 
look forward to the $2 billion or $3 billion election in 2000, with a 
half-billion of it disguised as issue advocacy.''
  Let me explain how this bill will get to the core of this problem; 
how it works; and why it is much more likely to pass court muster than 
previous attempts to get at this issue.
  The premise of this bill was developed in consultation with noted 
constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein; Josh 
Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU; and 
others. The approach is a straightforward, two tiered one that only 
applies to advertisements that constitute the most blatant form of 
electioneering.
  It only applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a 
primary and 60 days before a general election, that identify a federal 
candidate. And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year. 
What is required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors, 
and a prohibition on the direct or indirect use of corporation or union 
money to fund the ads.
  We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only 
communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and 
carefully.
  If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired 
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad 
doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly, 
if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group 
hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is 
not an electioneering ad.
  If it is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial 
distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an 
electioneering ad. Plain and simple.
  If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the 
sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors 
who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1 of the previous 
year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign contributions 
over $200. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business 
corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions.
  The clear, narrow wording of the bill is important because it passes 
two critical First Amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the 
Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness and 
overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the 
requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that 
identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote 
for or against a particular candidate.
  Nothing in this bill restricts the right of any group to engage in 
issue advocacy. For example, the following ad--which was actually run 
in 1996--would be completely unaffected by this bill. The text of the 
ad--which is a pure issue ad in the true sense of the term--says, 
``This election year, America's children need your vote. Our public 
schools are our children's ticket to the future. But education has 
become just another target for attack by politicians who want huge cuts 
in education programs. They're making the wrong choices. Our children 
deserve leaders who will strengthen public education, not attack it. 
They deserve the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as 
if your children's future depends on it. It does.''
  That is not an electioneering ad, and that conclusion is not simply 
based on perception. It is based on the fact that it does not meet the 
clearly delineated criteria put forth in our bill, and therefore, 
exists completely outside the realm of this legislation.
  For that matter, nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering 
ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any 
group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future, 
with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering 
ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero 
restrictions on content.
  The argument that will no doubt be leveled by opponents to this 
approach--those advocates of secrecy who do not want the public to know 
who is financing these ads, and for how much--is that it is 
inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is 
simply not so, and that's not just my opinion. Constitutional scholars 
from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law to Vanderbilt Law have 
endorsed the approach of this bill.
  The fact is, the only restrictions in the bill--namely, the use of 
union and corporation treasury money to pay for electioneering ads--are 
rooted in well-established case law that has long allowed for the 
regulation of the use of such money for electioneering purposes. 
Further, the threshold for disclosure is more than double what it is 
for candidates who receive contributions, and absolutely no disclosure 
is required whatsoever from any person or entity which spends less than 
$10,000. And it bears repeating that nothing in this bill affects any 
printed communications in any way, shape, or form--so voter guides are 
completely outside the universe of communications that are covered by 
this measure.

[[Page 826]]

  Mr. President, ATACC is a sensible, reasonable approach to attacking 
a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our 
campaign finance system. I would ask my colleagues, how can anyone not 
be for disclosure? How can anyone say that less information for the 
public leads to better elections? Don't the American people have the 
right to know who is paying for these stealth advocacy ads, and how 
much?
  Apparently, the majority of the Senate thought so. Last year, when 
this measure was approved as an amendment and incorporated into the 
McCain-Feingold legislation, the bill garnered 52 votes--bringing the 
majority of the Senate on board. Unfortunately, the will of the 
majority did not ultimately prevail, as we were unable to break the 
sixty votes necessary to end a threatened filibuster and institute 
real, fair and meaningful reform in the way in which American elections 
are financed.
  But we have heard before that it can't be done, only to see the House 
of Representatives do it. Today, we have new members of this body--
members who have seen first hand the effects these electioneering ads 
are having on campaigns and elections in this country, and I invite 
them to join with Senators Jeffords and I in supporting this bill. I 
would say to them that we, as candidates and Senators, are accountable 
to the people. We're required to file disclosure reports as candidates. 
PACs are required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are 
spent on these ads without one dime being reported. Not one dime.
  Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of 
campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for 
twenty years, I understand the realities, and I know that there are 
concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may 
ultimately pass, it must be fair, equitable, and constitutional.
  This bill passes all three of these tests. And it represents one, 
significant step we might take to ensure that the first elections of 
the next century--the next millennium--are more open, more fair, and 
more representative of the will of the individual. That's what this 
bill is really all about, Mr. President. It's about putting elections 
back into the hands of individuals by letting them have the facts they 
need to make informed decisions, and by ensuring that electioneering 
ads are paid for by voluntary, individual contributions.
  That's all, Mr. President. No plot to subvert the First Amendment. No 
scheme to silence any group or person. No plan to control what anyone 
says or when they say it. Just an honest, constitutionally sound 
attempt to bring some honesty and accountability back into 
electioneering advertising, and return some sense of confidence to the 
American people that their elections belong to them. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible, incremental 
approach, and join in the fight to attack secrecy and promote honesty 
in campaign advertising.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the 
106th Congress I rise in the Senate Chamber to express my strong 
support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my 
Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation.
  Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours 
debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the 
House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long 
hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform 
legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a 
constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994 and last year, and I 
believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful 
campaign finance reform during this Congress.
  I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent 
campaigns, and especially in the 1996 elections, point out the fact 
that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working 
to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. The 
proof obtained from the hearings in both the House and the Senate on 
campaign finance abuses should alone be enough to motivate my 
colleagues to complete work on this issue in the Senate. Without 
action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we 
go from election to election.
  The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of 
Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements 
and tighten the rule on expenditures of corporate and union treasury 
funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election.
  I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues 
understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my 
colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are 
running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding 
debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both 
candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, 
views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this 
information to decide on which candidate they will support.
  Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People 
for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television 
advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and 
that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the 
express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements 
discuss issues such as the candidate's drinking, supposed off-shore 
bank accounts and the failure of the candidate's business.
  The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial 
backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and 
under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even 
though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the 
information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will 
be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these 
advertisements.
  Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as 
James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information 
is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge 
will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own 
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
  Mr. President, the ATACC Act will arm the people with the knowledge 
they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to 
arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. As 
my colleague Senator Snowe has stated, the amount of money spent on 
issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate. 
In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent 
on issue advocacy, while in the recently completed cycle an estimated 
$275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. This is 
a doubling of the amount of money spent on issue advocacy ads in one 
election cycle, and I fear entering an election cycle that includes a 
Presidential election that we may see at least another doubling of 
these type of expenditures.
  I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight 
is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements 
in the ATACC Act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with 
the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed 
decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the 
sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the 
contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this 
information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are 
seeking federal office.
  Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis 
puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the 
appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign 
finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure 
requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public 
purview

[[Page 827]]

would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help ensure that 
our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public doesn't 
feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being followed, 
this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their elected 
representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption by this 
required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws will be 
followed and enforced.
  While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit 
corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund 
these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close 
to an election. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from 
engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit 
unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these 
restrictions in order to avoid the deleterious influences on federal 
elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control 
over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and 
unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I 
feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, 
will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some 
of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass-
roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor 
require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. 
Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor 
restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed 
early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we 
are and are not attempting to do with our legislation.
  We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the 
important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This 
has required us to review the seminal cases in this area, including 
Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure 
rules has been an area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of 
regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear 
and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and 
overbreadth.
  Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these 
provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it 
is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on 
constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have 
created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the 
Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be 
upheld.
  I know that campaign finance reform is an area of diverse viewpoints 
and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive 
and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that 
have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The 
American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, 
informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know 
that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do 
just that.
  The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of 
campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected 
in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes 
this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters 
the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel 
some of the disillusionment the electorate feel with our campaign 
system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic 
system.
  In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an 
informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The 
ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our 
electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic 
system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 80. A bill to establish the position of Assistant United States 
Trade Representative for Small Business, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                     small business enhancement act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to help America's small businesses. This legislation will 
assist small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of a bill 
on small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and by 
creating an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business.
  Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order 
to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation--
we must encourage small business expansion.
  Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses represent 
over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ 52 percent of the 
workers, and 38 percent of workers in high-tech occupations. Small 
businesses account for virtually all of the net new jobs, and 51 
percent of private sector output.
  In my home State of Maine, of the 36,660 businesses with employees in 
1997, 97.6 percent of the businesses were small businesses. Maine also 
boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. In terms of job 
growth, small businesses are credited with all of the net new jobs in a 
survey of job growth from 1992 to 1996.
  Small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job 
creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job 
opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest--job 
training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our 
own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building 
economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting 
small business, Government too often frustrates small business efforts.
  Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for 
small businesses each year, according to the Small Business 
Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest 
American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a 
disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate 
America rather than in small businesses.
  My legislation will address two problems facing our Nation's small 
businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion 
and fuel job creation.
  One, this legislation will require a cost analysis legislative 
proposal before new requirements are passed on to small businesses. Too 
often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the 
costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help ensure 
that these unintended consequences are not passed along to small 
businesses.
  According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business 
owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling out government 
paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place 
yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we 
should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small 
businesses.
  This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small 
businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained 
in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of 
costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year 
period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would 
be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully 
consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through 
careful planning, we may succeed in avoiding unintended costs.
  Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to 
establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small 
Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened, 
and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The new Assistant 
U.S. Trade Representative

[[Page 828]]

will promote exports by small businesses and work to remove foreign 
impediments to these exports.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist 
small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial 
opportunities but also in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Allard, and Mr. 
        Akaka):
  S. 81. A bill to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish rules governing park overflights; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     National Parks Overflights Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Parks Overflights Act. This legislation intends to promote air safety 
and protect natural quiet in our national parks by providing a process 
for developing air tour management plans (ATMP) at those parks. An ATMP 
at a national park would manage commercial air tour flights over and 
around that park, and over any Native American lands within or adjacent 
to the park.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that this is the same 
legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate last 
September, as part of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
System Improvement Act, or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
reauthorization bill. Today I reintroduced the FAA reauthorization bill 
that was approved by the Senate last year. Title VI of the bill deals 
with national parks overflights.
  Mr. President, the National Parks Overflights Act was developed at 
the recommendation of the National Parks Overflights Working Group. The 
working group was established to develop a plan for instituting flight 
restrictions over national parks because of the noise and environmental 
consequences associated with commercial air tours of the parks. 
Environmentalists, as well as general aviation and air tour industry 
representatives, constituted the membership of the working group. The 
group recommended a consensus proposal on overflights, which is 
embodied in the National Parks Overflights Act.
  Visitors to our national parks, whether by air or through the 
entrance gate, deserve a safe and quality visitor experience. The 
number of air tour flights across the country is on the rise. As 
additional aircraft operate in concentrated airspace, the risk of an 
accident increases. We have a responsibility to manage park airspace to 
provide for the safe and orderly flow of traffic.
  ``Natural quiet,'' or the ambient sounds of the environment without 
the intrusion of manmade noise, is a highly valued resource for 
visitors to our national parks. As commercial air tour flights 
increase, their noise also increases, which can impair the opportunity 
for park visitors on the ground to enjoy the natural quiet that they 
seek and deserve.
  The National Parks Overflights Act seeks to promote both safety and 
natural quiet by providing a fair and balanced process for the 
development of Air Tour Management Plans at individual parks. The FAA 
Administrator and the Director of the National Park Service are to work 
cooperatively to develop an ATMP through a public process.
  The development of an ATMP will include the environmental 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would 
also require that commercial air tour operators increase their safety 
standards, specifically by meeting FAA Part 135 or Part 121 safety 
criteria.
  Certain parks have been dealt with individually in the bill because 
of their unique circumstances. Since Grand Canyon overflights are 
governed by legislation that has already been enacted into law, the 
Grand Canyon National Park has been exempted from the legislation. 
Alaska is also exempt from the legislation given the vast expanse of 
park land and the unique nature of aviation in the state. The 
legislation would prohibit commercial air tours of the Rocky Mountain 
National Park.
  Let me conclude by saying that commercial air tours provide a 
legitimate means of experiencing national parks. They are particularly 
important for providing access to the elderly and the disabled. I 
believe that this legislation appropriately balances the rights of all 
park visitors. I hope and expect that we can work together toward its 
swift enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 82. A bill to authorize appropriations for Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                 The Air Transportation Improvement Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act, which would reauthorize the programs of 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). This legislation includes numerous 
provisions that will help sustain and enhance safety, security, 
efficiency, and competition in the national aviation system. The bill 
also would establish a widely-endorsed system for managing the 
environmental consequences of commercial air tour flights over national 
parks.
  As most of my colleagues know, the Commerce Committee worked hard 
last year to develop a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. Following a 
bipartisan, inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package 
that among other things would have authorized important airport 
construction grants. The legislation also would have instituted a host 
of safety and security enhancements.
  One of the key elements of last year's Senate-passed FAA bill was the 
aviation competition and service title. It would have modestly enhanced 
the capacity at the four slot-controlled airports in the country--
LaGuardia and JFK in New York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. New 
entrant, low fare carriers have been effectively shut out of these key 
markets, which are critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving 
consumers new low cost choices.
  Senator Frist and Majority Leader Lott were instrumental in 
developing these proposals. Senator Frist in particular has been out in 
front in the effort to bolster the role that regional jets play in the 
overall aviation system. As everyone who cares about the quality of air 
service knows, regional jets will be integral to expanding and 
improving service to small and medium-sized communities in the years to 
come.
  Unfortunately, special interests worked to thwart our efforts and 
killed these provisions to encourage airline competition. Instead of 
delivering pro-consumer aviation legislation to the traveling public, 
Congress failed to act after some of the major airlines applied 
pressure against these proposals that threatened their lock on the 
market.
  On the same day that the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 92 to 
one, we also appointed conferees. Although the House approved its own 
FAA reauthorization bill in August of last year, the leadership failed 
to appoint conferees. As a result, the two chambers were never given an 
opportunity to reconcile the two bills. Congress was then forced to 
include a short-term reauthorization of the AIP in the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. This was a clear failure on 
the part of the 105th Congress.
  The text of the bill I am introducing today is nearly identical to 
the FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved overwhelmingly 
last year. The only changes that have been made involve a few purely 
technical corrections and removal of provisions that have already been 
enacted into law.
  In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act, we reauthorized the AIP 
for six months so that this Congress would have to act immediately to 
complete the work of the last Congress. The AIP is set to expire on 
March 31, 1999. With the introduction of this bill, I am fulfilling my 
commitment to continue the

[[Page 829]]

reauthorization process where the last Congress left off in a time 
frame that ensures the continuation of the federal airport grant 
program.
  I plan to hold a hearing on this bill and to mark it up as soon as 
possible. The heavy lifting has already been done. The bill may undergo 
some revisions, especially considering our good fortune to have Senator 
Rockefeller appointed as the new ranking member on the Aviation 
Subcommittee. Even so, it will not be necessary for us to start from 
scratch. As the Commerce Committee begins this effort, I look forward 
to working again with Senators Gorton, Hollings, and Rockefeller, as 
well as the rest of my colleagues, on a reauthorization package that 
all Senators can support.
  Mr. President, we must work over the next few months to finish the 
job we started last year. It is vital that we push forward with the 
important pro-consumer provisions that are included in this bill. Last 
year, consumers lost out to special interests. This year, I will use 
all means at my disposal to ensure that does not happen again.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator McCain, 
Senator Hollings and others in introducing legislation to authorize 
spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal 
year 2000. As we embark on this new session of a new Congress, it is 
critical that we begin immediately the process of putting together a 
comprehensive aviation bill--to ensure that the FAA is fully 
authorized, to facilitate continued critical airport development, and 
to address a number of broad aviation policy matters.
  I want to make clear at the outset that I join as a cosponsor of this 
bill as a starting point. Senator McCain plans to pursue vigorously a 
comprehensive bill, and that will be our first order of business, but 
haste may not allow us to do all that we want and have a responsibility 
to do, particularly if the House continues to pursue its own clean, 6-
month reauthorization bill, and then a long-term bill. I am hopeful 
that we will accomplish our objectives expeditiously, but I see any 
number of hurdles in our path and believe that in the Senate, too, we 
may need to pursue a short-term extension and then give this 
legislation the consideration it is due.
  As my colleagues know, I have the honor in this Congress of following 
in the great foot steps of Wendell Ford, who served this body for 24 
years, and served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation 
Subcommittee for as long as any of us can remember. In fact, the bill 
being introduced today, essentially the same bill that passed the 
Senate last year, honored the Senator by naming it the Wendell H. Ford 
Air Transportation Safety Improvement Act, at the unanimously-endorsed 
suggestion of Senator Ted Stevens.
  In stepping into Senator Ford's shoes, I aim to ensure not only that 
the aviation needs of West Virginia and other rural states and 
communities are secured, but also that the needs of the nation and of 
my colleagues' constituents are addressed. Certainly there will be 
competing interests and sometimes conflicts, but we all must and share 
in the fundamental responsibility to maintain safety in the skies, to 
support fully the needs of the aviation system and modernization 
effort, to ensure that the industry provides the service our 
constituents demand and deserve, to facilitate stable funding sources 
for our airports, and to be vigilant in opening up markets for our air 
carriers worldwide. These are all daunting tasks but we are up to the 
challenge, and I look forward to working with the Chairman, and members 
of the Committee in crafting an aviation bill that we can all take 
pride in.
  The bill before you is a place to begin our discussion.
  Last year, the Congress was able to pass only a six-month extension 
of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), effectively freezing half of 
the $1.95 billion allocated to the program. Absent a reauthorization, 
our airports and our constituents may lose the ability to upgrade a 
runway or start an expansion project that facilitates new business 
opportunities for our communities--all because we're having trouble 
figuring out a way out of the box we are in. Senator McCain's resolve 
notwithstanding, our House counterparts have already favorably reported 
a clean, 6-month extension of the program. Even if we can reach 
agreement about our immediate needs, I do not want the Senate to pass a 
bill only to see the program lapse because our House colleagues refuse 
to consider anything other than a clean, short-term extension, before 
the March deadline, saving the major issues and a long-term bill for 
later in the year. The blame-game that would ensue would only harm the 
citizens who sent us here. We can get more slots, we can work to 
improve service to small communities, we can make sure the FAA has the 
ability to move forward with its modernization plans, but it will not 
happen overnight.
  Let me give you but one example. Senator Gorton last year offered an 
amendment in the Commerce Committee that would have raised the 
passenger facility charge (PFC) from $3 per enplanement to $4. I 
supported Senator Gorton. I expect that he will again try to raise the 
PFC, and the Administration has indicated that they will propose an 
increase as well. This is a tough issue, pitting the carriers against 
the airports, and letting some claim that it is a new tax. However, 
another dollar could get us a lot more capacity at our nation's 
airports.
  In front of us are the daunting future needs of the aviation system. 
All of the projections show that we will have 300 million more 
passengers by the year 2009. As much as I would like them all to flow 
through West Virginia, I know that all of our airports will face 
constraints--money is tight, and a PFC increase will help. How the PFC 
is structured, the types of controls possible, and what they are used 
for, are all difficult choices, and I want to work with the airports 
and the carriers to try to resolve this issue in a balanced way.
  The air traffic control system also needs to be revamped. It is a 
complex system and each new system requires changes in the cockpit, new 
procedures and new avionics--change, therefore, that cannot happen 
overnight. GAO recently reported that the FAA is making progress, 
changing the way it does business and working with the industry to 
figure out what is needed. GAO also reports that the FAA will need $17 
billion to complete the modernization effort. Without that degree of 
funding, we may not be able to get all we want--new computers, new ways 
to move aircraft, and more capacity to make the system safer. According 
to the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, unless we address 
this problem, we are facing gridlock in the skies.
  So, funding of the FAA is a critical, critical matter. I know 
Congressman Shuster wants to take the Airport and Airways Trust Fund 
off budget, but what I found last year is that the offset for taking 
trust funds can be devastating to totally unrelated programs. Right 
now, I know that the FAA is supported not only by the Trust Fund 
revenues, but also a large contribution from the general fund, which 
should be continued in recognition of the important public benefits 
provided by aviation.
  Finally, I know that the administration will be submitting its 
legislative proposal to us within the next few weeks. We need to take a 
careful look at those recommendations, and sit down with Secretary 
Slater and Administrator Garvey to develop a blueprint for the future. 
We have an opportunity this year to make some real changes. I do not 
want it to pass us by.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President: As the 106th Congress begins, we have to 
address unfinished business first. As many Senators know, the vitally 
important legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) passed 
in September by a vote of 92-1. For a variety of reasons negotiations 
between the House and Senate unfortunately resulted in only a 6-month 
extension, expiring at the end of March of this year.
  The bill being introduced today is an effort to reauthorize the 
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration

[[Page 830]]

for two years. In today's global economy, adequate airport facilities 
are a critical component of any economic development program. The FAA's 
Airport Improvement Program plays a central role in ensuring that 
communities have adequate airport facilities. For FY 1998, the FAA 
received $1.9 billion. For FY 1999, the FAA would have received $1.95 
billion. Instead, the agency will receive only half of that amount, 
unless we pass either a short term bill or a long term extension of the 
program. One course we know can work quickly. The other course is more 
challenging.
  While it is critically important that we work together to pass this 
vital legislation, I do want to raise an issue of fundamental 
importance. That is truth in budgeting. I have supported taking trust 
funds out of the unified Federal budget for many years. This year, 
there may be an opportunity to actually make it happen. What is good 
for highways is good for aviation. At the end of FY 1998, the Airport 
and Airway Trust Fund uncommitted surplus was $4.339 billion, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. It is projected to rise to $13.419 
billion by the end of FY 2000 and to $79.325 billion by FY 2008. We are 
collecting the taxes, but are not giving people what they expect, what 
they paid for, or what they deserve.
  We know that the FAA needs money to buy new computers and to use 
satellite technology. We can take it from the existing revenues, while 
continuing the general fund contribution, or we can limp along, giving 
the FAA a portion of what we all know it needs. If we do that there are 
consequences, and the fault is ours, not the agency's. It is that 
simple.
  There are difficult problems facing the 106th Congress. Our 
constituents are demanding reasonable fares. Competition can work well 
to give us reasonable fares, but it has also created unfortunate 
anomalies. Look around the country--in the 1980's, the Department of 
Transportation approved every single merger that was proposed. Now we 
have a consolidated industry, with the big 3 air carriers accounting 
for nearly 55-60% of the market, and the Northwest-Continental alliance 
accounting for another 16-17%.
  Over the years, I have asked the General Accounting Office to look at 
fares at small and medium hubs, places like Charleston, S.C. They 
reported that fares were in fact higher, on average at Charleston, at 
Greenville, and many other small communities. Last week, the Department 
of Transportation reported that Charleston had the 5th highest air 
fares in the country. I did not realize we were 5th, a dubious honor, 
but I knew they were high. We have a deregulated air transportation 
system, dependent upon mega-carriers for service, and beholden to them 
on fares. Without a hub system aggregating traffic, small communities 
would not receive the service they do today. Yet, the same ability 
allows the carriers to place the small towns at their mercy. Our 
economy and ability to grow, to attract new businesses, are now highly 
dependent upon those same carriers. A low cost carrier may come into a 
market, cause a ripple in lowering the fares, and then be driven out. 
We had that with Air South. Getting service to one of the four slot-
controlled airports, while important for that route, will not result in 
lower air fares for the rest of the markets. The average may drop 
overall, but the statistics do not then tell the real story. 
Determining how we address this problem will be difficult, but it must 
be done.
  There also are a number of issues important to aviation employees and 
others that must be addressed as we move through the legislative 
process. For example, issues involving foreign repair stations must be 
examined, and the bill includes a task force to address this issue. FAA 
employees must once again be granted access to the Merit System 
Protection Board and a Universal Access System must be authorized. 
Whistle-blower protection is another important issue. I look forward to 
working with Chairman McCain, Chairman Gorton, and Ranking Member 
Rockefeller toward meeting these objectives and ensuring that our final 
product is a bill that enjoys the broad support of the aviation 
community.
  The comprehensive bill I am co-sponsoring today may not be completed 
for many months, and we may have to pass a short term extension to make 
sure that the money for airports does not get tied up. Nevertheless, I 
know that the Chairman is anxious to get us all moving, so let the 
debate begin and let us move forward expeditiously in order to fund 
these critically important programs.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman McCain today 
as a cosponsor of the Air Transportation Improvement Act. As Senator 
McCain has indicated, this legislation is exactly the same as 
legislation approved by the Senate last year by a vote of 99-1.
  Passing legislation to extend the Airport Improvement Program needs 
to be among our highest priorities for early action in this Congress. 
While I do not support every provision of this legislation, it was a 
reasonable compromise, which enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the 
Senate last year. As pressure continues to increase on our national 
aviation system, and with the looming Y2K problem, we need to act 
quickly to ensure continued improvements in air safety and efficiency.
  One provision of this legislation of particular interest to me, and 
many others, is the provision related to the Reagan Washington National 
Airport ``perimeter rule.''
  Codified in 1986, the National ``perimeter rule'' limits non-stop 
flights serving National to destinations within 1250 miles of the 
airport. Originally enacted to promote the development of Dulles 
Airport as the region's long-haul carrier, the ``perimeter rule'' has 
long outlived its original justification, and remains today a 
significant barrier to competition in a very competitive aviation 
industry.
  While the justification for the ``perimeter rule'' has long since 
faded, it continues to unfairly limit service to communities outside of 
the 1250 mile perimeter. Communities like Las Vegas, a community that 
desperately needs additional air service, are denied access to a very 
significant airport. In addition, air carriers which happen to operate 
hubs located outside of the perimeter face a very serious competitive 
disadvantage. On numerous occasions, the General Accounting Office has 
identified the ``perimeter rule'' as a barrier to entry in the 
Washington, DC air service market.
  Simply put, the ``perimeter rule'' should be repealed. Nevadans, and 
other Westerners, deserve the same access to our nation's capital city 
as those in the East. Continuing this discriminatory, artificial 
barrier to competition creates major inequities in our national 
transportation system.
  The legislation we are introducing today, unfortunately, does not 
repeal the ``perimeter rule.'' Instead, like the legislation passed 
last year by the Senate, the legislation grants limited exemptions from 
the perimeter rule for up to 12 additional slots a day at Washington 
National. Last year, in the interest of compromise, I supported this 
approach. I continue to be concerned, however, that the 12 new, outside 
the perimeter slots, if enacted, will be insufficient to truly address 
the competitive problems created by the ``perimeter rule.'' While I 
support Chairman McCain's attempt to reach consensus on this issue, I 
am hopeful that last year's approach can be further refined to create 
additional opportunities for Washington National service from beyond 
the 1250 mile perimeter, while at the same time recognizing the 
interests of those communities within the current perimeter, as well as 
Northern Virginia.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman, and other members of the 
Commerce Committee, on this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 90. A bill to establish reform criteria to permit payment of 
United States arrearages in assessed contributions to the United 
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 91. A bill to restrict intelligence sharing with the United 
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[[Page 831]]




                   united nations reform legislation

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting two pieces of 
legislation to address some of the most critical issues affecting our 
relations with the United Nations--the U.S. arrearage in financial 
contributions to the United Nations, and sharing of intelligence 
information with the U.N.
  The first bill, the United Nations Reform Act is a bill that I have 
been working on for several years beginning in my former capacity as 
chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International 
Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half-
century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations 
can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can 
survive as an important international institution in the short term.
  I believe we must genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the 
United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is 
the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable 
reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment 
plan for the arrearages that have built up on the U.N. system.
  The plan would set up a five-step/five-year process under which the 
President would each year have to certify that specific reform 
guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting payment each 
year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages.
  In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard 
freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been 
maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been 
enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing 
and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office.
  In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S. 
representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body 
the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
[ACABQ].
  In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long-
standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform 
would ensure that the United States receives full credit or 
reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support 
our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions.
  In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a 
significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been 
achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into 
an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of 
much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the 
United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development 
programs and other activities that should not be included in our 
mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a 
revision in the U.N. Charter.
  Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a 
major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This 
plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of 
the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists 
throughout the U.N. system.
  Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations' 
dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten 
the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world 
problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the 
kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the 
original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years 
ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II, 
with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through 
international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the 
Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charter to 
act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was 
intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted 
to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N. 
Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the 
activities of the Security Council and General Assembly.
  The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical 
cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil 
Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. 
Finally, the United Nations was to have an important role in responding 
to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the 
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects millions of the 
world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women 
and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees.
  Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short 
of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated, 
fundamental problems with the U.N. system. One is that there are those 
who attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that 
frankly do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is 
used to transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and 
its Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes 
to the real world in which we all live.
  Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the 
United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly 
and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool 
of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to 
respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the 
U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of 
consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system 
worldwide now exceeds 53,000.
  Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency 
and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member 
nations, a near-majority are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate, 
paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed 
countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain, 
Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for almost 80 percent of 
the U.N. budget, with the United States paying more than any other 
country. In just 10 years of supposed zero-growth budgets, the U.N.'s 
budget doubled. Over the last two decades, the U.N.'s budget has 
tripled.
  There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from 
the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United 
States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N. 
structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have 
characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative, 
and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N. 
Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United 
Nations could work better than it does today with less than half as 
many people.
  The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United 
Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The 
U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true 
consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget 
process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to 
concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian 
relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its 
proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose 
missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have 
been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today.
  This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward setting a new 
course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail 
to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an 
unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy 
team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan 
consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to 
expensive irrelevance continues, then we will

[[Page 832]]

have lost a unique opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is 
not at all clear to me whether such an opportunity will soon return.
  As a complement to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing this 
U.N.-related bill which I sponsored in the last two Congresses to 
protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared with the United 
Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by requiring that 
procedures for protecting intelligence sources and methods are in place 
at the United Nations that are at least as stringent as those 
maintained by countries with which the United States regularly shares 
similar types of information. This requirement may be waived by the 
President for national security purposes but only on a case by case 
basis and only when all possible measures for protecting the 
information have been taken.
  This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of 
U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in 
1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to 
note that some attention has been paid by this body to the problems 
that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with 
international bodies. Condition 5 of the resolution of ratification for 
the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence 
shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons, 
was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation.
  This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward addressing the 
problems we have witnessed in the past concerning intelligence 
information sharing with the U.N.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am 
introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan 
consensus in this country on the United Nations. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Thomas, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roth, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith or 
        Oregon, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 92. A bill to provide for biennial budget process and a biennial 
appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the performance of 
the Federal Government; to the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of 
August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the 
other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.


               BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator 
Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and 13 other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial 
Budget and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the budget and 
appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of 
federal programs.
  Mr. President, our most recent experience with the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act shows the 
need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill 
clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, 
authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 4,000 
paged bill contained 8 of the regular appropriations bills, $9 billion 
in revenue provisions, $21.4 billion in ``emergency'' spending, and 40 
miscellaneous funding and authorization provisions.
  Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-
year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we 
can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more 
deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable 
to the American people.
  Mr. President, moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process 
enjoys very broad support. President Clinton supports this bill. 
Presidents Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and 
budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, 
OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a 
biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice 
Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Both of 
the Senate Leaders support this legislation. And, at the end of last 
year, 37 Senators wrote our two Senate Leaders calling for quick action 
to pass legislation to convert the budget and appropriations process to 
a two-year cycle.
  The most recent comprehensive studies of the federal government and 
the Congress have recommended this reform. The Vice President's 
National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations 
and budget cycle.
  A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget 
process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, 
and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to 
complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget 
process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to 
prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put 
the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.
  Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the 
process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization 
legislation, and 13 appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that 
last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we 
consistently fail to complete action on the 13 appropriations bills, to 
authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.
  Since 1950 Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for 
completion of all thirteen individual appropriations bills to fully 
fund the government.
  The Congressional Budget Office's recent report on unauthorized 
appropriations shows that for fiscal year 1999, 118 laws authorizing 
appropriations have expired. These laws cover over one-third or $102.1 
billion of appropriations for non-defense programs. Another 10 laws 
authorizing non-defense appropriations will expire at the end of fiscal 
year 1997, representing $10.4 billion more in unauthorized non-defense 
programs.
  We have met the statutory deadline to complete a budget resolution 
only three times since 1974. In 1995, we broke the Senate record for 
the most roll call votes cast in a day on a budget reconciliation bill. 
The Senate conducted 39 consecutive roll call votes that day, beginning 
at 9:29 in the morning and finishing up at 11:59 that night.
  While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, 
the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has 
the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four 
times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization 
bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.
  I recently asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update 
and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the 
budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, 
reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. 
CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget 
Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 
1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. 
In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the 
budget.
  If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly 
debating the budget in the authorization, budget, and appropriations 
process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we 
are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we 
are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.
  Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would 
submit a two-year budget and Congress would consider a two-year budget 
resolution and 13 two-year appropriation

[[Page 833]]

bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the 
Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and 
for oversight of government agencies.
  Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come 
from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For 
most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our 
entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does 
not change these law on an annual basis. The only component of the 
budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or 
discretionary, accounts.
  Mr. President, the most predictable category of the budget are these 
appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. I 
recently asked CBO to update an analysis of discretionary spending to 
determine those programs that had unpredictable or volatile funding 
needs. CBO found that only 4 percent of total discretionary funding 
fell into this category. Most of this spending is associated with 
international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding 
cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less 
deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude 
supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or 
unanticipated requirements.
  Mr. President, in 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a 
Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator 
Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on 
us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are 
too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation 
is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with 
respect to the oversight of federal programs and activities.
  Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it 
should be. We have a total of 34 House and Senate standing authorizing 
committees and these committees are increasingly crowded out of the 
legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the 
biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and 
developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the 
budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and 
opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to 
federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing 
process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater 
opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in 
the second year.
  We also build on the oversight process by incorporating the new 
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 into 
the biennial budget process. The primary objective of this law is to 
force the federal government to produce budgets focused on outcomes, 
not just dollars spent.

  Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions 
that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary 
to make much better decisions. But, under the current annual budget 
process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of 
focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the 
taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, 
budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and 
watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the 
Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act be made a part of the Record 
along with a copy of the bill.

  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 92

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Biennial Budgeting and 
     Appropriations Act''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

       Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:


                              ``timetable

       ``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the 
     congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with 
     the One Hundred Seventh Congress) is as follows:


  
  
                             ``First Session
 ``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 First Monday in February..................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
February 15...............................  Congressional Budget Office
                                             submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget         Committees submit views and
 submission.                                 estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
April 1...................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
June 10...................................  House Appropriations
                                             Committee reports last
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bill.
June 30...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.
                            ``Second Session
 ``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 February 15...............................  President submits budget
                                             review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President      Congressional Budget Office
 submits budget review.                      submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
The last day of the session...............  Congress completes action on
                                             bills and resolutions
                                             authorizing new budget
                                             authority for the
                                             succeeding biennium.
 
       ``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap 
     year and during which the term of a President (except a 
     President who succeeds himself) begins, the following dates 
     shall supersede those set forth in subsection (a):


  
  
                             ``First Session
 ``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
First Monday in April.....................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
April 20..................................  Committees submit views and
                                             estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
May 15....................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
June 1....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
July 1....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
July 20...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.''.
 
     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND 
                   IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``biennially''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2 
     consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
     numbered year.''.
       (c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       (1) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May 
     15 of each odd-numbered year'';
       (ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the 
     biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
       (iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in such period'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the 
     biennium''.
       (2) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such 
     biennium''.
       (3) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United 
     States Code''.
       (4) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     632(e)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On 
     or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House shall report to its House the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection 
     (a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
       (5) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.

[[Page 834]]

       (6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
       (7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting 
     ``BIENNIAL''.
       (8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in 
     the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
       (d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal 
     years,'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for a biennium'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and 
     inserting ``May''.
       (e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
       (2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''.
       (3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     of that biennium''.
       (f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium'';
       (2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
       (g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
     Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year''.
       (i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year'' 
     after ``July'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by 
     such resolution''.
       (k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
       (1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     642(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act 
     is amended by--
       (A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal 
     year''.

     SEC. 4. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

       Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202(b)(2) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) are amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) The period of the biennium covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       ``(B) The period of the first six fiscal years covered by 
     the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       ``(C) The period of the four fiscal years following the 
     first six fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in 
     paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
       (1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each 
     odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section 
     300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning 
     with the One Hundred Seventh Congress, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress, the budget for the biennium 
     beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget 
     transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget 
     message and summary and supporting information. The President 
     shall include in each budget the following:''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section 
     1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in 
     the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
       (8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     following the biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
       (C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
       (10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those 
     fiscal years''.
       (11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
       (c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each 
     even-numbered year''.
       (d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
     Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for'';
       (2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``each

[[Page 835]]

     fiscal year of the biennium, as the case may be,''; and
       (3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year 
     of the biennium''.
       (e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which 
     such budget relates''.
       (f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting 
     ``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
       (ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years 
     following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years 
     following the biennium''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and 
     inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
       (C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of 
     each even-numbered year.''.
       (g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after 
     January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)'' 
     and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by 
     section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year of such period''.
       (2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each 
     year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
       (h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
     Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
       (2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal 
     year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

     SEC. 6. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

       Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

       ``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations 
     for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An 
     Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each 
     fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the 
     fiscal years of the biennium).'.
       ``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the 
     support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and 
     shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each 
     fiscal year in such period.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has 
     the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     622(11)).''.

     SEC. 7. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


                   ``authorizations of appropriations

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period 
     of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or 
     activity for which the appropriations are authorized will 
     require no further appropriations and will be completed or 
     terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and
       ``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or 
     revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes 
     action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular 
     biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
       ``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration 
     pursuant to a rule or statute;
       ``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
       ``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 8. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and 
     inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and adding 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph 
     (28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a'' 
     and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a 
     biennial''.
       (c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a 
     biennial'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon,
       (D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted 
     semicolon; and
       (E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
       (d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section 
     9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial 
     accountability, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before 
     ``years'';
       (B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent 
     year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
       (C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and 
     inserting ``four''.
       (e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three 
     years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
       (3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
       (h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives shall review the strategic plans, 
     performance plans, and performance reports, required under 
     section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1115 
     and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of all agencies 
     under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each committee may 
     provide its views on such plans or reports to the Committee 
     on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
       (i) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on March 1, 2000.

[[Page 836]]

       (2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each agency shall take such actions as 
     necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 9. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


            ``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

       ``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to 
     consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a 
     limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for 
     only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, 
     project, or activity for which the new budget authority or 
     obligation limitation is provided will require no additional 
     authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated 
     after the amount provided has been expended.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

     SEC. 10. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of OMB shall--
       (1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the 
     definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on 
     that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial 
     budget process based on the 2-year period; and
       (2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 8 and 10 
     and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall apply to 
     budget resolutions and appropriations for the biennium 
     beginning with fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of 
     authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year 
     2002, the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act relating to 2-year authorizations shall take effect 
     January 1, 2000.
                                  ____


      Description of the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act

       The Domenici bill would convert the annual budget, 
     appropriations, and authorization process to a biennial, or 
     two-year, cycle.


                 First Year: Budget and Appropriations

       Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the 
     beginning of the first session of a Congress. The President's 
     budget would cover each year in the biennium and planning 
     levels for the four out-years. Converts the ``Mid-session 
     Review'' into a ``Mid-biennium review''. The President would 
     submit his ``mid-biennium review'' at the beginning of the 
     second year.
       Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and 
     a reconciliation bill (if necessary). Instead of enforcing 
     the first fiscal year and the sum of the five years set out 
     in the budget resolution, the bill provides that the budget 
     resolution establish binding levels for each year in the 
     biennium and the sum of the six-year period. The bill 
     modifies the time frames in the Senate ten-year pay-as-you-go 
     point of order to provide that legislation could not increase 
     the deficit for the biennium, the sum of the first six years, 
     and the sum of the last 4 years.
       Requires Congress to enact a two-year appropriations bills 
     during the first session of Congress. Requires Congress to 
     enact 13 appropriations bills covering a two-year period and 
     provides a new majority point of order against appropriations 
     bills that fail to cover two years.
       Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the 
     first session of a Congress. The bill provides a majority 
     point of order against consideration of authorization and 
     revenue legislation until the completion of the biennial 
     budget resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary) 
     and the thirteen biennial appropriations bills. An exception 
     is made for certain ``must-do'' measures.


     Second Year: Authorization Legislation and Enhanced Oversight

       Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration 
     of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal 
     programs. The bill provides a majority point of order against 
     authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than 
     two years except those measures limited to temporary programs 
     or activities lasting less than two years.
       Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
     to incorporate the government performance planning and 
     reporting process into the two-year budget cycle to enhance 
     oversight of federal programs.
       The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the 
     Results Act) requires federal agencies to develop strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports. The law 
     requires agencies to establish performance goals and to 
     report on their actual performance in meeting these goals. 
     The Results Act requires federal agencies to consult with 
     congressional committees as they develop their plans. 
     Beginning in 1997, the law will require all federal agencies 
     to submit their strategic plans to the Office of Management 
     and Budget, along with their budget submissions, by September 
     30 of each year. Finally, the Results Act requires the 
     President to include a performance plan for the entire 
     government as part of the budget submission, beginning with 
     the FY 1999 budget.
       The Domenici bill modifies the Results Act to place it on a 
     two-year cycle along with the budget process. The bill also 
     requires the authorizing committees to review the strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports of federal 
     agencies and to submit their views, if any, on these plans 
     and reports as part of their views and estimates submissions 
     to the budget committees.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is great for us to get started 
with our work on the floor. We have been working, of course, in 
organizing our committees, drafting our bills, getting prepared--as a 
matter of fact, probably earlier than usual, despite the trial that is 
going on here. So it is good to get started.
  I am pleased that our party has also an agenda. We will be talking 
about Social Security, of course. I think a great many changes need to 
be made there to ensure that this program continues, not only for those 
now drawing benefits but for those who will in the future.
  We will be talking about education, seeking to get Federal help 
directly to the classrooms.
  We will be talking about strengthening the military, which I think is 
very important and must be done.
  I think tax reduction and tax reform is very high on our list of 
priorities. Certainly, we will be working on that.
  Health care, of course, will be part of what we talk about.
  And each of us, in addition to those, will have other issues.
  So I rise to talk a moment this morning about biannual budgeting. It 
is a real pleasure for me to join the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici, and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Senator Thompson, to introduce a bill that will create a 2-year 
budgeting appropriations process. We worked long and hard on that 
issue. I have been working on it for some time, largely because it is 
my belief that the current budgeting process is broken.
  After last year's massive omnibus appropriations bill, which was a 
debacle, of course, I argue that the budget process needs to be 
changed. We spend entirely too much time, both in the Congress and in 
the executive branch, on budget issues.
  Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has 
consistently failed to complete action on the budget by the time of the 
start of the fiscal year and, as a result, have increasingly relied on 
omnibus measures that come in at the end.
  Last year's experience ought to ensure that we do, in fact, need a 
change. In fact, only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations bills were 
passed for funding for 10 cabinet-level departments, and the rest was 
crammed into a 24-hour budget session, which does not work well. Not a 
new idea. As a matter of fact, since 1950, Congress has failed on the 
13 individual appropriations bills to be funded in every year except 
2--only 2 years did we succeed in doing that. We routinely fund 
unauthorized expenditures and appropriations. The idea is to have an 
Authorization Committee and an Appropriations Committee. The 
authorization is made and then it is funded. That has not been the 
case. We need to change that.
  In response to that, I introduced, in the 104th Congress, legislation 
that would create a biannual budget, and I am very pleased to join in 
with Senators Domenici and Thompson in offering this bill this year. 
This legislation does not eliminate the budgeting process. Each step 
serves an important role and will continue to do that. However, 
basically, we would simply be doing it for 2 years rather than 1, 
having the off year for oversight.
  I happen to think that one of the principal obligations of the 
Congress is

[[Page 837]]

oversight of the kinds of programs that have been funded by this 
Congress. We have not had the opportunity to do that. We have extended 
debate on appropriations throughout almost the entire year in each year 
of the 2-year periods. Almost all of us come from States where a 2-year 
cycle program is used and is successful. It is not a brand new idea and 
it can be done. I am sure there will be resistance, largely from the 
appropriators, who rather enjoy the power plays that go on each year 
through the appropriations process. But I believe in the old saying 
that we have often heard that ``if you expect different results, you 
have to change the process.''
  The results we have had are not the kinds of results that most people 
would like to have. I think that it is high time for us to change the 
process, and I look forward very much to that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an honor to once again join the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the Chairman of 
the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson in introducing 
legislation to create a two year budget and appropriations process. 
We've all worked long and hard on this issue and I am hopeful that we 
can finally enact this common sense reform this year.
  I've been saying for awhile that the current budget process is 
breaking down. After last year's debacle with the massive omnibus 
appropriations bill, I'd argue that the budget process is broken. 
Congress and the executive branch spend entirely too much time on 
budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, 
Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the Federal 
budget before the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, has 
increasingly relied on omnibus spending measures to fund the Federal 
Government. Last year's experience should dispel any lingering doubts 
about whether the current process is broken. In fact, only four of the 
13 regular appropriations bills were passed before funding for 10 
Cabinet-level departments was crammed into one bill debated over just a 
24 hour period.
  The budget resolution, reconciliation bill and appropriations bill 
continue to become more time-consuming. In the process, authorizing 
committees are being squeezed out of the schedule. There are too many 
votes on the same issues and too much duplication. In the end, this 
time could be better spent conducting vigorous oversight of Federal 
programs which currently go unchecked.
  In response to these problems, in the 104th Congress I introduced 
legislation that would create a biennial budget process. I am pleased 
to continue this effort by joining Senator Domenici and Senator 
Thompson in offering this bill. It will rectify many of the problems 
regarding the current process by promoting timely action on budget 
legislation. In addition, it will eliminate much of the redundancy in 
the current budget process. This legislation does not eliminate any of 
the current budget processes--each step serves an important role in 
congressional deliberations. However, by making decisions once every 2 
years instead of annually, the burden should be significantly reduced.
  Perhaps most importantly, biennial budgeting will provide more time 
for effective congressional oversight, which will help reduce the size 
and scope of the Federal Government. Congress simply needs more time to 
review existing Federal programs in order to determine priorities in 
our drive to balance the budget.
  Another benefit of a 2 year budget cycle is its effect on long term 
planning. A biennial budget will allow the executive branch and State 
and local governments, all of which depend on congressional 
appropriations, to do a better job making plans for long term projects.
  Two year budgets are not a novel idea. Nor will biennial budgeting 
cure all of the Federal Government's ills. However, separating the 
budget session from the oversight session works well across the country 
in our state legislatures.
  This legislation is a solid first step toward reforming the 
congressional budget process. This concept enjoys strong bipartisan 
support. It is supported by the Clinton administration, Majority Leader 
Lott and Minority Leader Daschle. In addition, 36 other Senators joined 
Senators Domenici, Thompson and I in sending a letter last year to 
Senate leaders calling for quick action on this bipartisan reform early 
this year. I am hopeful that effort and this bill will be a catalyst 
for swift action on this common sense, good government reform.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, 
        and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 93. A bill to improve and strengthen the budget process; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to 
report or be discharged.


                     BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1999. The time has come to conform our budget laws 
and procedures to a new fiscal environment. The Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Control Act was enacted 25 years ago. Amendments to the 
Act, including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation in 1985, 
established new enforcement procedures that were further expanded and 
modified in the 1990 budget agreement. Those laws and procedures have 
served us well. In combination with a strong economy and robust revenue 
growth, not only have we balanced the Federal budget, we will shortly 
produce a surplus even excluding the current balances generated by 
Social Security program.
  Laws and procedures developed over the last 25 years for a fiscal 
environment of deficits, cannot be appropriate for a fiscal environment 
of surpluses.
  As an example, while the President a year ago in his State of the 
Union Address pledged to reserve ``every penny'' of the Social Security 
surpluses for the reform of that program, he and the Congress did not 
live up to that pledge last year. In one piece of legislation last 
fall, we spent $21.4 billion of these surpluses for so-called 
``emergencies''. Moreover, in order to get appropriations bills signed 
into law, we relied on innovative financing mechanisms, a charitable 
characterization, to meet the spending limits. The fact that we will 
have difficulty meeting these limits in the coming year is not the 
fault of the limits that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in 1997, it 
will be largely due to the reluctance to face the hard choices in 
appropriations last year.
  This is not to say we have not accomplished a great deal in recent 
years. Since 1994, we curbed the rate of growth in spending through the 
enactment of legislation such as Freedom to Farm, welfare reform, and 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While I am very proud that we have 
stemmed the growth rate in federal spending, we did not balance the 
budget by actually cutting spending. We did stop the explosive and 
unsustainable rate of growth in spending that begun in the 1960's with 
the help of the budget laws and amendments of the past 25 years. But 
even so, it should be clear that the current balanced budget is largely 
due to an unexpected growth in federal revenues due to our robust 
economy.
  Beginning in 1990, we enjoyed the peace dividend with the end of the 
Cold War. The taxpayer did not see a dollar of that dividend. In 1998, 
we saw the balanced budget dividend, and we should produce a balanced 
budget dividend excluding the transactions of the Social Security trust 
fund in the very near future. It is time for the American taxpayer to 
collect a dividend.
  In my view, the current budget process allows us to spend the 
taxpayer's money more easily than it is to let the American taxpayer 
keep what he has earned. We will collect more in taxes this year as a 
percentage of the economy than we have in any year since World War II.
  We need to find a way to change our budget process in such a manner 
to stop the erosion on the spending side,

[[Page 838]]

while finding a way to return at least something to the American 
taxpayer.
  Some will argue that we should abandon all of our budget laws and 
find a way to cut taxes at any cost. Others will demagogue Social 
Security and hope it can stop any tax relief and fight any changes to 
tighten controls on spending. We need to find a way to steer the middle 
course. We should reduce taxes, but in a way that ensures we set aside 
the entire Social Security surplus for legislation that restores the 
long-term solvency of this program.
  With these objectives in mind, I am introducing today the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1999. This bill would:
  (1) streamline the budget process and enhance the oversight of 
Federal programs;
  (2) curb the abuse of emergency spending;
  (3) set aside and protect the Social Security surplus until we can 
ensure that Social Security will be there for every generation;
  (4) make way for tax relief that does not tap Social Security 
surpluses;
  (5) provide that we never again incur a government shutdown because 
of our failure to enact appropriations.
  Title I contains the text of the Biennial Budgeting and 
Appropriations Act, which I am also introducing as separate legislation 
today. My remarks on that bill go into some detail on the need for this 
reform. In my view a biennial appropriations and budget process will 
streamline the budget process, enhance oversight, and allow Congress to 
review the budget and federal programs in a more deliberative and 
efficient manner.
  Title II would reform the manner in which we treat emergency 
spending. In 1990, we devised the current system of caps on 
appropriated spending and the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirement for all 
other legislation. When we were developing these procedures, the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, had the 
foresight to recognize that we needed an exception for emergency 
legislation.
  Since President Clinton made his pledge last January that every penny 
of the surplus should be reserved for Social Security reform, $27 
billion in ``emergency'' spending has come out of the surplus. We could 
not find $1 out of the budget surplus to return to the American 
taxpayer, but we found $27 billion of ``emergency'' spending in one 
year to take out of the surplus for a host of programs, many of which 
are difficult to classify as an emergency.
  Senator Byrd was correct in 1990. We need an exception for emergency 
spending and the bill I introduced today retains that exception. 
However, this bill says if something is truly an emergency, it should 
have the support of 60 Senators. Remember, the President said that 
every penny of the surplus--without exception--should be reserved for 
Social Security. I feel there should be a means to use a portion of the 
surplus for emergency spending, but only in extraordinary 
circumstances. Sixty votes in the Senate is not too much to ask.
  Title III modifies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements to make clear 
that on-budget surpluses can be used to offset the cost of legislation. 
Current law is vague with respect to the application of the pay-as-you-
go procedures when there is an on-budget surplus. Title III modifies 
the law and the Senate rule to make clear that the surpluses generated 
by Social Security are not available for tax or direct spending 
legislation. However, the on-budget surplus, the surplus excluding 
Social Security, would be available for such legislation.
  Title IV contains Senator McCain's legislation, the Government 
Shutdown Prevention Act, frequently referred to as an automatic 
continuing resolution (CR). This title provides that agencies will be 
automatically funded at the lower of the previous year's level or the 
level proposed by the President.
  Title V is designated to end what has been characterized as the 
``vote-athon'' on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. This 
title is very similar to an amendment that Senator Byrd offered to the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which was later dropped during conference.
  The manner in which the Senate currently considers budget resolutions 
and reconciliation bills is demeaning because of two loopholes in the 
current law regarding the consideration of budget resolutions and 
reconciliation bills. The first loophole is that the time limitation on 
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills is for debate only. 
Senators can continue to offer amendments after the time has expired. 
This loophole has been exploited in recent years where there is this 
mad rush in the Senate at the end of the process to vote on 
amendments--a demeaning process for what is supposed to be the 
``world's greatest deliberative body.'' On October 27, 1995, the Senate 
broke a record by holding 39 consecutive roll call votes on a 
reconciliation bill, with the first vote beginning at 9:29 in the 
morning and the last vote ending at 11:59 that night.
  The second loophole pertains to sense of the Senate amendments on 
budget resolutions. In the Senate, amendments to budget resolution must 
be germane. However, sense of the Senate amendments that are in the 
Budget Committee's jurisdiction are considered germane. By adding the 
words, ``the funding levels in this resolution assume that'', a Senator 
can make any sense of the Senate amendment germane. Instead of debating 
spending, revenue, and debt levels, the Senate now spends most of its 
time debating non-binding language on budget resolutions. For example, 
last year's Senate-passed budget resolution contained 65 separate sense 
of the Senate provisions. Ninety-nine of the 139 pages in that budget 
resolution were devoted to sense of the Senate provisions, ranging from 
agricultural trade policy to the Ten Commandments.
  Title V makes two basic changes to Senate's procedures for 
consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. First, it 
provides a procedure similar to post-cloture for the consideration of 
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. Second, it prohibits the 
inclusion of sense of the Senate language in budget resolutions and 
makes any sense of the Senate amendment not germane and subject to a 60 
vote point of order under the Budget Act.
  Mr. President, I have a more detailed description of this legislation 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed, with the text of the 
bill, in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 93

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

             TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Revision of timetable.
Sec. 103. Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
              Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 104. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.
Sec. 105. Amendments to title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 106. Two-year appropriations; title and style of appropriations 
              Acts.
Sec. 107. Multiyear authorizations.
Sec. 108. Government plans on a biennial basis.
Sec. 109. Biennial appropriations bills.
Sec. 110. Report on two-year fiscal period.
Sec. 111. Effective date.

                  TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

Sec. 201. Emergency designation guidance.

             TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

Sec. 301. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con. 
              Res. 67.
Sec. 302. Clarification of pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 303. Clarifications regarding extraneous matter.

TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, 
              BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Amendment to title 31.
Sec. 403. Effective date and sunset.

TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF 
               BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 501. Consideration of budget measures in the Senate.

[[Page 839]]

Sec. 502. Definition.
Sec. 503. Conforming the compensation of the director and deputy 
              director of the Congressional Budget Office with other 
              legislative branch support agencies.
             TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Biennial Budgeting and 
     Appropriations Act''.

     SEC. 102. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

       Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:


                              ``timetable

       ``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the 
     congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with 
     the One Hundred Seventh Congress) is as follows:

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ``First Session
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 First Monday in February..................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
February 15...............................  Congressional Budget Office
                                             submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget         Committees submit views and
 submission.                                 estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
April 1...................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
June 10...................................  House Appropriations
                                             Committee reports last
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bill.
June 30...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.
                             ``Second Session
 ``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 February 15...............................  President submits budget
                                             review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President      Congressional Budget Office
 submits budget review.                      submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
The last day of the session...............  Congress completes action on
                                             bills and resolutions
                                             authorizing new budget
                                             authority for the
                                             succeeding biennium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap 
     year and during which the term of a President (except a 
     President who succeeds himself) begins, the following dates 
     shall supersede those set forth in subsection (a):


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ``First Session
 ``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 First Monday in April.....................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
 April 20.................................  Committees submit views and
                                             estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
May 15....................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
June 1....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
July 1....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
July 20...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND 
                   IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``biennially''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2 
     consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
     numbered year.''.
       (c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       (1) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May 
     15 of each odd-numbered year'';
       (ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the 
     biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
       (iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in such period'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the 
     biennium''.
       (2) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such 
     biennium''.
       (3) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United 
     States Code''.
       (4) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     632(e)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On 
     or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House shall report to its House the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection 
     (a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
       (5) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
       (7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting 
     ``BIENNIAL''.
       (8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in 
     the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
       (d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal 
     years,'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for a biennium'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and 
     inserting ``May''.
       (e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
       (2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''.
       (3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     of that biennium''.
       (f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium'';
       (2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
       (g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
     Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year''.
       (i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year'' 
     after ``July'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by 
     such resolution''.
       (k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
       (1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     642(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.

[[Page 840]]

       (3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act 
     is amended by--
       (A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal 
     year''.

     SEC. 104. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

       Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202(b)(2) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) are amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) The period of the biennium covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       ``(B) The period of the first six fiscal years covered by 
     the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       ``(C) The period of the four fiscal years following the 
     first six fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

     SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in 
     paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
       (1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each 
     odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section 
     300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning 
     with the One Hundred Seventh Congress, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress, the budget for the biennium 
     beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget 
     transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget 
     message and summary and supporting information. The President 
     shall include in each budget the following:''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section 
     1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in 
     the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
       (8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     following the biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
       (C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
       (10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those 
     fiscal years''.
       (11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
       (c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each 
     even-numbered year''.
       (d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
     Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for'';
       (2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium, as 
     the case may be,''; and
       (3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year 
     of the biennium''.
       (e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which 
     such budget relates''.
       (f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting 
     ``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
       (ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years 
     following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years 
     following the biennium''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and 
     inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
       (C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of 
     each even-numbered year.''.
       (g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after 
     January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)'' 
     and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by 
     section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year of such period''.
       (2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each 
     year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
       (h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
     Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
       (2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal 
     year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

     SEC. 106. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

       Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

       ``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations 
     for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An 
     Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each 
     fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the 
     fiscal years of the biennium).'.
       ``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the 
     support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and 
     shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each 
     fiscal year in such period.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has 
     the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     622(11)).''.

     SEC. 107. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:


                   ``authorizations of appropriations

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period 
     of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or 
     activity for which the appropriations are authorized will 
     require no further appropriations and will be completed or 
     terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and

[[Page 841]]

       ``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or 
     revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes 
     action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular 
     biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
       ``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration 
     pursuant to a rule or statute;
       ``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
       ``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 108. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and 
     inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and adding 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph 
     (28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a'' 
     and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a 
     biennial''.
       (c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a 
     biennial'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon,
       (D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted 
     semicolon; and
       (E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
       (d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section 
     9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial 
     accountability, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before 
     ``years'';
       (B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent 
     year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
       (C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and 
     inserting ``four''.
       (e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three 
     years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
       (3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
       (h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate 
     or the House of Representatives shall review the strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports, required 
     under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of 
     all agencies under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each 
     committee may provide its views on such plans or reports to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
       (i) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on March 1, 2000.
       (2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of 
     enactment of this title, each agency shall take such actions 
     as necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this title.

     SEC. 109. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


            ``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

       ``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to 
     consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a 
     limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for 
     only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, 
     project, or activity for which the new budget authority or 
     obligation limitation is provided will require no additional 
     authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated 
     after the amount provided has been expended.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

     SEC. 110. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     title, the Director of OMB shall--
       (1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the 
     definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on 
     that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial 
     budget process based on the 2-year period; and
       (2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 111. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 108 and 110 
     and subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by 
     this title shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall 
     apply to budget resolutions and appropriations for the 
     biennium beginning with fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of 
     authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year 
     2002, the provisions of this title and the amendments made by 
     this title relating to 2-year authorizations shall take 
     effect January 1, 2000.
                  TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

     SEC. 201. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION GUIDANCE.

       The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended--
       (1) by adding the following new section at the end of title 
     III:

     ``SEC. 318. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       ``(a) Designations.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of 
     legislation as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985--
       ``(A) the President shall submit a message to the Congress 
     analyzing whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all 
     the criteria in paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) the committee report, if any, accompanying that 
     legislation shall analyze whether a proposed emergency 
     requirement meets all the criteria in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--A proposed expenditure or tax change is 
     an emergency requirement if it is--
       ``(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or 
     beneficial);
       ``(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building 
     up over time;
       ``(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       ``(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       ``(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       ``(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an 
     aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when 
     normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       ``(3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the 
     proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria 
     set forth in paragraph (2), the President or the

[[Page 842]]

     committee report, as the case may be, shall provide a written 
     justification of why the requirement is an emergency.
       ``(b) Point of Order.--
       ``(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, upon a 
     point of order being made by a Senator against any provision 
     in that measure designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the 
     Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that 
     provision along with the language making the designation 
     shall be stricken from the measure and may not be offered as 
     an amendment from the floor.
       ``(2) Emergency legislation.--When the Senate is 
     considering an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, an 
     amendment thereto, a motion thereto, or a conference report 
     therefrom, upon a point of order being made by a Senator 
     against any provision in that measure that is not designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and the Presiding Officer sustains that 
     point of order, that provision shall be stricken from the 
     measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the 
     floor.
       ``(3) Conference reports.--A point of order sustained under 
     this subsection against a conference report shall be disposed 
     of as provided in section 313(d).
       ``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, an 
     emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a bill or joint 
     resolution that--
       ``(1) includes a provision designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;
       ``(2) includes in the long title or short title of that 
     bill or joint resolution any of the following words: 
     emergency, urgent, or disaster; and
       ``(3) appropriates funds in addition to those enacted in 
     the regular appropriations Act for that year as defined in 
     section 1311 of title 31, United States Code.'';
       (2) in subsections (c)(2) and (d)(2) of section 904, by 
     striking ``and 312(c)'' and inserting ``312(c), and 316''; 
     and
       (3) in the table of contents in section 1(a), by adding 
     after the item for section 317 the following:

``318. Emergency legislation.''.
             TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

     SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 202 OF 
                   H. CON. RES. 67.

       Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the deficit'' and 
     inserting ``the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by--
       (A) striking ``increases the deficit'' and inserting 
     ``increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget 
     deficit''; and
       (B) striking ``increase the deficit'' and inserting 
     ``increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

       (a) In General.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the deficit'' and 
     inserting ``the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget 
     deficit'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the estimate of the on-budget surplus for the budget 
     year determined under section 254(c)(3)(D).''.
       (b) Baseline.--Section 254(c)(3) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The estimated excess of on-budget receipts over on-
     budget outlays for the budget year assuming compliance with 
     the discretionary spending limits and that the full 
     adjustments are made under subparagraphs (C), (E), and (F) of 
     section 251(b)(2).''.

     SEC. 303. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING EXTRANEOUS MATTER.

       Section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by striking ``such year;'' and inserting 
     ``such year or such increases or decreases, when taken with 
     other provisions in such bill, would cause an on-budget 
     deficit in such year;''.
TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, 
              BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1310 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations

       ``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal 
     year does not become law prior to the beginning of such 
     fiscal year or a joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and 
     out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any project 
     or activity for which funds were provided in the preceding 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriation Act for 
     such preceding fiscal year; or
       ``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for 
     such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a 
     joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of 
     operations not in excess of the lower of--
       ``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular 
     appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for 
     the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations 
     provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint 
     resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year;
       ``(C) the rate provided in the budget submission of the 
     President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, for the fiscal year in question; or
       ``(D) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the 
     most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for part of that fiscal year or any funding 
     levels established under the provisions of this Act.
       ``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this 
     section for a project or activity shall be available for the 
     period beginning with the first day of a lapse in 
     appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date on which the applicable regular 
     appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether 
     or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be; or
       ``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
       ``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms 
     and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made 
     or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or 
     authority granted for such project or activity under current 
     law.
       ``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or 
     expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the 
     portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies to 
     such project or activity.
       ``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any 
     fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a 
     regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making 
     continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year 
     providing for such project or activity for such period 
     becomes law.
       ``(e) This section shall not apply to a project or activity 
     during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other 
     than an authorization of appropriations)--
       ``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or 
     grants authority for such project or activity to continue for 
     such period; or
       ``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be 
     made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall 
     be granted for such project or activity to continue for such 
     period.
       ``(f) In this section, the term `regular appropriation 
     bill' means any annual appropriation bill making 
     appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or granting 
     authority, for any of the following categories of projects 
     and activities:
       ``(1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies 
     programs.
       ``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     judiciary, and related agencies.
       ``(3) The Department of Defense.
       ``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       ``(5) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       ``(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices.
       ``(7) Energy and water development.
       ``(8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
       ``(9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       ``(10) Military construction.
       ``(11) The Department of Transportation and related 
     agencies.
       ``(12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
     the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
     independent agencies.
       ``(13) The legislative branch.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 13 of 
     title 31, United States Code,

[[Page 843]]

     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1310 the following new item:

``1311. Continuing appropriations.''.

       (c) Protection of Other Obligations.--Nothing in the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to effect 
     Government obligations mandated by other law, including 
     obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid.

     SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.

       (a) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this title 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning with 
     fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Sunset.--The amendments made by this title shall sunset 
     and have no force or effect after fiscal year 2001.
TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF 
               BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

     SEC. 501. CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET MEASURES IN THE SENATE.

       (a) Prohibition Against Inclusion of Precatory Language in 
     a Budget Resolution.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include 
     precatory language.''.
       (b) Procedure.--Section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Procedure in Senate for the Consideration of a 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       ``(1) Legislation available.--It shall not be in order to 
     proceed to the consideration of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget unless the text of that resolution has been 
     available to Members for at least 1 calendar day (excluding 
     Sundays and legal holidays unless the Senate is in session) 
     prior to the consideration of the measure.
       ``(2) Time for debate.--
       ``(A) In general.--Debate in the Senate on any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, and all amendments thereto and 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to not more than 30 hours, except that with 
     respect to any concurrent resolution referred to in section 
     304(a) all such debate shall be limited to not more than 10 
     hours. Of this 30 hours, 10 hours shall be reserved for 
     general debate on the resolution (including debate on 
     economic goals and policies) and 20 hours shall be reserved 
     for debate of amendments, motions, and appeals. The time for 
     general debate shall be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their designees.
       ``(B) Disposition of amendments and other matters.--After 
     no more than 30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget, the Senate shall, except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), proceed, without any further action or 
     debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition 
     thereof.
       ``(C) Action permitted after 30 hours.--After no more than 
     30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget, the only further action in order shall be disposition 
     of--
       ``(i) all amendments then pending before the Senate;
       ``(ii) all points of order arising under this Act which 
     have been previously raised; and
       ``(iii) motions to reconsider and 1 quorum call on demand 
     to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required 
     to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote 
     begins.
     Disposition shall include raising points of order against 
     pending amendments, motions to table, and motions to waive.
       ``(3) Amendments.--
       ``(A) Debate.--Debate in the Senate on any amendment to a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     mover and the manager of the concurrent resolution, and 
     debate on any amendment to an amendment, debatable motion, or 
     appeal shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, except that in the event the manager 
     of the concurrent resolution is in favor of any such 
     amendment, motion, or appeal, the time in opposition thereto 
     shall be controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee. 
     No amendment that is not germane to the provisions of that 
     concurrent resolution shall be received. An amendment that 
     includes precatory language shall not be considered germane. 
     Such leaders, or either of them, may, from the time for 
     general debate under their control on the adoption of the 
     concurrent resolution, allot additional time to any Senator 
     during the consideration of any amendment, debatable motion, 
     or appeal.
       ``(B) Filing of amendments.--Except by unanimous consent, 
     no amendment shall be proposed after 15 hours of debate of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget have elapsed, unless it 
     has been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by the 
     15th hour if an amendment in the first degree (or if a 
     complete substitute for the underlying measure), and unless 
     it has been so submitted by the 20th hour if an amendment to 
     an amendment (or an amendment to the language proposed to be 
     stricken).
       ``(C) Recognition.--For the purpose of providing an 
     opportunity for the offering amendments in the first degree 
     (or amendments which are a complete substitute for the 
     underlying measure), the Presiding Officer of the Senate 
     shall alternate recognition between members of the majority 
     party and the minority party. No Senator shall call up more 
     than a total of 2 amendments until every other Senator shall 
     have had the opportunity to do likewise.
       ``(D) Limitation on number of second degree amendments.--No 
     more than a total of 2 consecutive amendments to any 
     amendment may be offered by either the majority or minority 
     party.
       ``(4) Debate.--General debate time may only be yielded back 
     by unanimous consent and a motion to further limit the time 
     for general debate shall be debatable for 30 minutes. A 
     motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with 
     instructions to report back within a specified number of 
     days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day on which the 
     Senate is not in session) is not in order. Debate on any such 
     motion to recommit shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager 
     of the concurrent resolution.
       ``(5) Mathematical consistency.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule, and 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B), an amendment or 
     series of amendments to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     proposed in the Senate shall always be in order if such 
     amendment or series of amendments proposes to change any 
     figure or figures then contained in such concurrent 
     resolution so as to make such concurrent resolution 
     mathematically consistent or so as to maintain such 
     consistency.
       ``(B) Effect of adoption of substitute amendments.--Once an 
     amendment to an amendment (which is a complete substitute for 
     the underlying amendment) has been agreed to, no further 
     amendments to the underlying amendment shall be in order.''.
       (c) Conference Reports in the Senate.--Section 305(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Action on Conference Reports in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of the conference report on any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution) may be made even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to.
       ``(2) Consideration.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the consideration in the Senate 
     of the conference report (or a message between Houses) on any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, and all amendments in 
     disagreement, and all amendments thereto, and debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, debate shall be 
     limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their designees. Debate on any debatable motion or appeal 
     related to the conference report (or a message between 
     Houses) shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
     conference report (or a message between Houses).
       ``(B) Disposition.--After no more than 10 hours of debate 
     on the conference report (or message between Houses) 
     accompanying a concurrent resolution on the budget, and all 
     amendments in disagreement, and all amendments thereto, the 
     Senate shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     proceed, without any further action or debate on any 
     question, to vote on the final disposition thereof.
       ``(C) Action permitted after 10 hours.--After no more than 
     10 hours of debate on the conference report (or message 
     between the Houses) accompanying a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget, and all amendments in disagreement, and all 
     amendments thereto, the only further action in order shall be 
     disposition of: all amendments then pending before the 
     Senate; all points of order arising under this Act which have 
     been previously raised; and motions to reconsider and 1 
     quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum 
     (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately 
     before the final vote begins. Disposition shall include 
     raising points of order against pending amendments, motions 
     to table, and motions to waive.
       ``(3) Conference report defeated.--Should the conference 
     report be defeated, debate on any request for a new 
     conference and the appointment of conferees shall be limited 
     to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, 
     the manager of the conference report and the Minority Leader 
     or his designee, and should any motion be made to instruct 
     the conferees before the conferees are named, debate on that 
     motion shall be limited to one-half hour, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager 
     of the conference report. Debate on any amendment to any such 
     instructions shall be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally 
     divided between and controlled by the mover and the manager 
     of the conference report. In all cases when the manager of 
     the conference report is in favor of any motion, appeal, or 
     amendment, the time in opposition shall be under the control 
     of the minority leader or his designee.

[[Page 844]]

       ``(4) Amendments in disagreement.--In any case in which 
     there are amendments in disagreement, time on each amendment 
     shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the manager of the conference 
     report and the Minority Leader or his designee. No amendment 
     that is not germane to the provisions of such amendments 
     shall be received.''.
       (c) Reconciliation.--Section 310(e) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Procedure in the Senate.--The provisions of section 
     305 for the consideration in the Senate of concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget and conference reports thereon, 
     except for the provisions of subsection (b)(5) of that 
     section, shall also apply to the consideration in the Senate 
     of reconciliation bills considered under subsection (b) and 
     conference reports thereon.''.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITION.

       Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) The term `major functional category' means the 
     allocation of budget authority and outlays separated into the 
     following subtotals:
       ``(A) Defense discretionary.
       ``(B) Nondefense discretionary.
       ``(C) Direct spending.
       ``(D) If deemed necessary, other subsets of discretionary 
     and direct spending.''.

     SEC. 503. CONFORMING THE COMPENSATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND 
                   DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                   OFFICE WITH OTHER LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUPPORT 
                   AGENCIES.

       Section 201(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``(III)'' and 
     inserting ``(II)''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``(IV)'' and 
     inserting ``(III)''.
                                  ____


           Description of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1999


             Title I: Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations

       Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the 
     beginning of the first session of a Congress.
       Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and 
     a reconciliation bill (if necessary) during the first session 
     of a Congress.
       Requires Congress to enact 13 appropriations bills covering 
     a two-year period during the first session of a Congress and 
     provides a new majority point of order against appropriations 
     bills that fail to cover two years.
       Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the 
     first session of a Congress by providing a new majority point 
     of order against consideration of authorization and revenue 
     legislation until the completion of the biennial budget 
     resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary) and the 
     thirteen biennial appropriations bills.
       Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration 
     of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal 
     programs and provides a majority point of order against 
     authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than 
     two years except those measures limited to temporary programs 
     or activities lasting less than two years.
       Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
     (the Results Act) to incorporate the government performance 
     planning and reporting process into the two-year budget cycle 
     to enhance oversight of federal programs.


                  title ii: emergency spending reforms

       Makes any emergency spending in any bill subject to a 60 
     vote point of order in the Senate. If this point of order is 
     sustained against any emergency provision, the emergency 
     spending would be extracted from the bill under a Byrd rule 
     procedure.
       Provides a reporting requirement for the President and 
     Congress to justify proposed emergencies spending and to 
     document whether proposed emergencies meet five criteria: 
     necessary, sudden, urgent, unforseen, and not permanent.
       Makes any non-emergency provision in an emergency 
     supplemental appropriations bill subject to a 60 vote point 
     of order in the Senate. If this point of order was sustained, 
     the non-emergency provision would be extracted from the bill 
     under a Byrd rule procedure.


             title iii: clarifying changes to pay-as-you-go

       Amends the Senate's 10-year pay-as-you-go rule to make 
     clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset the 
     cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
       Amends the statutory pay-go system (enforced by OMB) to 
     make clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset 
     the cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
       Amends the Byrd rule to allow revenue losing provisions in 
     reconciliation bills to be made permanent as long as they do 
     not cause an on-budget deficit in the future.


              title iv: government shutdown prevention act

       Provide for an automatic continuing resolution (CR) at the 
     lower of the President's requested level or the previous 
     year's appropriated level.


                title v: streamlining the budget process

       Eliminates the ``vote-athon'' at the end of the process by 
     adopting procedures similar to a post-cloture process for 
     budget resolutions and reconciliation bills:
       Reduce time on a budget resolution from 50 to 30 hours (10 
     hours of which would be reserved for amendments);
       Reduce time on amendments from 2 hours to 1 hour;
       Establish filing deadlines (1st degree amendments must be 
     filed by 15th hour; 2nd degree amendments must be filed by 
     20th hour);
       After all time expires, require vote on any pending 
     amendments and then final passage;
       Make sense of the Senate amendments on budget resolutions 
     and reconciliation bills nongermane; and,
       Adopt same procedures for reconciliation bills.
       Modifies the scope of the budget resolution to be major 
     categories of spending instead of 20 individual functions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 94. A bill to repeal the telephone excise tax; to the Committee on 
Finance.


               Repeal of Three Percent Federal Excise Tax

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the 
three percent federal excise tax that all Americans pay every time they 
use a telephone.
  Under current law, the federal government taxes you three percent of 
your monthly phone bill for the so-called ``privilege'' of using your 
phone lines. This tax was first imposed one hundred years ago. To help 
finance the Spanish-American War, the federal government taxed 
telephone service, which in 1898 was a luxury service enjoyed by 
relatively few. The tax reappeared as a means of raising revenue for 
World War I, and continued as a revenue-raiser during the Great 
Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the chronic 
federal budget deficits of the last twenty years.
  Fortunately for telephone subscribers, we are enjoying some long-
overdue good news: thanks to the Balanced Budget Act enacted by the 
Congress in 1997, we are now expecting budget surpluses for the next 
decade, perhaps as much as $700 billion. Mr. President, just as it did 
in the 105th Congress, that announcement should mean the end of the 
federal phone excise tax.
  Here's why. First of all, the telephone is a modern-day necessity, 
not like alcohol, or furs, or jewelry, or other items of the sort that 
the government taxes this way. The Congress specifically recognized the 
need for all Americans to have affordable telephone service when it 
enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The universal service 
provisions of the Act are intended to assure that all Americans, 
regardless of where they live or how much money they make, have access 
to affordable telephone service. The telephone excise tax, which bears 
no relationship to any government service received by the consumer, is 
flatly inconsistent with the goal of universal telephone service.
  It's also a highly regressive and unfair tax that hurts low-income 
and rural Americans even more than other Americans. Low-income families 
spend a higher percentage of their income than medium- or high-income 
families on telephone service, and that means the telephone tax hits 
low-income families much harder. For that reason the Congressional 
Budget Office has concluded that increases in the telephone tax would 
have a greater impact on low-income families than tax increases on 
alcohol or tobacco products. And a study by the American Agriculture 
Movement concluded that excise taxes like the telephone tax impose a 
disproportionately large tax burden on rural customers, too, who rely 
on telephone service in isolated areas.
  But, in addition to being unfair and unnecessary, there is another 
reason why we should eliminate the telephone excise tax. Implementation 
of the Telecom Act of 1996 requires all telecommunications carriers--
local, long-distance, and wireless--to incur new costs in order to 
produce a new, more competitive market for telecommunications services 
of all kinds.
  Unfortunately, the cost increases are arriving far more quickly than 
the new, more competitive market. The Telecom Act created a new subsidy 
program for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet, and the cost 
of

[[Page 845]]

funding that subsidy has increased bills for business and residential 
users of long-distance telephone service and for consumers of wireless 
services.
  Mr. President, the fact that the Telecom Act has imposed new charges 
on consumers' bills makes it absolutely incumbent upon us to strip away 
any unnecessary old charges. And that means the telephone excise tax.
  Mr. President, the telephone excise tax isn't a harmless artifact 
from bygone days. It collects money for wars that are already over, and 
for budget deficits that no longer exist, from people who can least 
afford to spend it now and from people who are footing higher bills as 
a result of the 1996 Telecom Act implementation. That's unfair, that's 
wrong, and that must be stopped.
  San Juan Hill and Pork Chop Hill have now gone down in history, and 
so should this tax.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 94

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

       (a) In General.--Effective with respect to amounts paid 
     pursuant to bills first rendered on or after January 1, 1999, 
     subchapter B of chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.) is repealed. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, in the case of communications 
     services rendered before December 1, 1998, for which a bill 
     has not been rendered before January 1, 1999, a bill shall be 
     treated as having been first rendered on December 31, 1998.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Effective January 1, 1999, the 
     table of subchapters for such chapter is amended by striking 
     out the item relating to subchapter B.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 95. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that 
public availability of information concerning stocks traded on an 
established stock exchange continues to be freely and readily available 
to the public through all media of mass communication; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                      the trading information act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Trading 
Information Act. In 1998, Americans continued to discover the Internet 
for the increased access to information and entertainment it provides, 
and as a more convenient means of purchasing goods. Americans also 
continued to discover the Internet as a more direct means of making and 
managing investments.
  Online stock trading is growing at a phenomenal pace. According to 
Forrester Research, there are more than 3 million online accounts, and 
that number is expected to exceed 14 million by 2002. In fact, the 
number of online traders in 1998 doubled from 1997, as it did from 
1996.
  Trading over the Internet is providing more Americans with the 
opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and to participate in 
the current growth in the market. New discount brokerages, high-speed 
Internet access, and ``real time'' market updates are all contributing 
to the growth of online trading. The Trading Information Act will help 
to preserve this growing trend.
  The Trading Information Act will ensure that online traders will 
continue to have access to information relating to financial markets 
which they rely on to properly manage their assets. Whether watching a 
stock ticker on television, receiving up-to-date information over a 
cell phone or pager, or logging on with an online brokerage firm, 
Americans must continue to have unfettered access to this vital 
information, and this bill will ensure they continue to have it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 96. A bill to regulate commerce between and among the several 
States by providing for the orderly resolution of disputes arising out 
of computer-based problems related to processing data that includes a 
2-digit expression of that year's date; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                                y2k act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to 
limit and prevent needless and costly litigation which is arising as a 
result of the computer programming problem commonly known as Y2K. Even 
before December 31 arrives lawsuits are beginning to be filed. This is 
an unfortunate reflection on our overly litigious society, and a 
situation which needs to be remedied. The Y2K Act takes a step toward 
encouraging technology producers to work with technology users and 
consumers to ensure a seamless transition for the 1990's to the year 
2000.
  The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we look to solving 
the technology glitch known as Y2K rather than clog our courts with 
years of costly litigation. The legislation is designed to compensate 
actual losses, but to assure that the courts do not punish defendants 
who have made good faith efforts to remedy the technology failure. My 
goal is to provide incentives for fixing the potential Y2K failures 
before they happen, rather than create windfalls for those who 
litigate.
  The bill would also encourage efficient resolution of failures by 
requiring plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an 
opportunity to remedy the failure and make things right before facing a 
lawsuit. We should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to 
address and remedy problems in a timely and professional manner.
  Physical injuries are not covered by the limitations on litigation 
and damages in this bill. In those instances where a computer date 
failure is responsible for personal physical injury, it is best to 
leave the remedy to existing state laws. Further, it would be imprudent 
policy to offer any ``safe harbor'' in such situations because to do so 
might have the undesired result of discouraging proactive remediation.
  This bill is a starting point. It provides an opportunity to begin 
discussion. It is my intention to hold a hearing in the near future, 
and to bring this bill to mark-up as quickly as full discussion will 
permit. I know many of my colleagues are interested in addressing this 
issue as well, and I look forward to working with them, and with 
affected industries and consumers to arrive at an acceptable piece of 
legislation which will benefit industry and consumers alike.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 97. A bill to require the installation and use by schools and 
libraries of a technology for filtering or blocking material on the 
Internet on computers with Internet access to be eligible to receive or 
retain universal service assistance; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   children's internet protection act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Children's 
Internet Protection Act, which is designed to protect children from 
exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful material when they 
access the Internet in school and in the library. This legislation is 
substantially similar to the Internet School Filtering Act, which I 
introduced in the last session of Congress.
  This legislation, like its predecessor, comes to grips with one of 
the more unfortunate aspects of modern life: that the problems of 
modern life don't stop at the schoolhouse door. Societal problems like 
violence and drugs have become part of the curriculum of life at many 
schools.
  Now, however, we are adding another problem to the list. And this 
particular wolf of a problem will walk into our schools disguised in 
the worthiest of sheeps' clothing: the Internet.
  Today, pornography is widely available on the Internet. According to 
``Wired'' magazine, today there are approximately 28,000 adult Web 
sites promoting hard and soft-core pornography. Together, these sites 
register many millions of ``hits'' by websurfers per day.
  Mr. President, there is no question that some of the websurfers who 
are accessing these sites are children. Some, unfortunately, are 
actively searching for these sites. But many others literally and 
unintentionally stumble across them.

[[Page 846]]

  Anyone who uses seemingly innocuous terms while searching the World 
Wide Web for educational or harmless recreational purposes can 
inadvertently run into adult sites. For example, when the term ``H20'' 
was typed recently into a search engine, one of the first of over 
36,000 sites retrieved led to another site titled 
``www.hardcoresex.com.'' This site provided the typical warning to 
those under 18 not to enter--and then proceeded to offer a free, 
uncensored preview of the pornographic material on the site. And when 
the searcher attempted to escape from the site, new porn-oriented sites 
immediately opened.
  Parents wishing to protect their children from exposure to this kind 
of material can monitor their children's Internet use at home. This is 
a parent's proper role, and no amount of governmental assistance or 
industry self-regulation will ever be as effective in protecting 
children as parental supervision. But parents can't supervise how their 
children use the Internet outside the home, in schools and libraries.
  Mr. President, the billions of dollars per year the federal 
government will be giving schools and libraries to enable them to bring 
advanced Internet learning technology to the classroom will bring in 
the Internet's explicit online content as well. These billions of 
dollars will ultimately be paid for by the American people. So it is 
only right that if schools and libraries accept these federally-
provided subsidies for Internet access, they have an absolute 
responsibility to their communities to assure that children are 
protected from online content that can harm them.
  And this harm can be prevented. The prevention lies, not in censoring 
what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of 
it onto the computers our children use outside the home.
  Mr. President, Internet filtering systems work, and they need not be 
blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of 
legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable 
of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the 
evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans. 
Best of all, their use will channel explicit material away from 
children while they are not under parental supervision, while not in 
any way inhibiting the rights of adults who may wish to post indecent 
material on the Web or have access to it outside school environs.
  Mr. President, it boils down to this: The same Internet that can 
benefit our children is also capable of inflicting terrible damage on 
them. For this reason, school and library administators who accept 
universal service support to provide students with its intended 
benefits must also safeguard them against its unintended harm. I 
commend the efforts of those who have recognized this responsibility by 
providing filtering systems in the many educational facilities that 
already have Internet capability. This legislation assures that this 
responsibility is extended to all other institutions as they implement 
advanced technologies funded by federally-mandated universal service 
funds.
  Mr. President, this bill takes a sensible approach. It requires 
schools receiving universal service discounts to use a filtering system 
on their computers so that objectionable online materials will not be 
accessible to students. Libraries with more than one computer are 
required to use a filtering system on at least one computer used by 
minors. Filtering technology is itself eligible to be subsidized by the 
E-rate discount. Schools and libraries must install and use filtering 
or blocking technology to be eligible to receive universal service fund 
subsidies for Internet access. If schools and libraries do not do so, 
they will not be eligible to receive universal service fund-subsidized 
discounts and will have to refund any E-rate subsidy funds already paid 
out.
  Some have argued that the use of filtering technology in public 
schools and libraries would amount to censorship under the First 
Amendment. The Supreme Court has found, however, that obscenity is not 
protected by the First Amendment. And insofar as other sexually-
explicit material is concerned, the bill will not affect an adult's 
ability to access this information on the Internet, and it will in no 
way impose any filtering requirement on Internet use in the home.
  Perhaps most important, the bill prohibits the federal government 
from prescribing any particular filtering system, or from imposing a 
different filtering system than the one selected by the certifying 
educational authority. It thus places the prerogative for determining 
which filtering system best reflects the community's standards 
precisely where it should be: on the community itself.
  Mr. President, more and more people are using the Internet each day. 
Currently, there may be as many as 50 million Americans online, and 
that number is expected to at least double by the millennium. As 
Internet use in our schools and libraries continues to grow, children's 
potential exposure to harmful online content will only increase. This 
bill simply assures that universal service subsidies will be used to 
defend them from the very dangers that these same subsidies are 
otherwise going to increase. This is a rational response to what could 
otherwise be a terrible and unintended problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 97

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Childrens' Internet 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT 
                   FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING 
                   TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(l) Implementation of an Internet Filtering or Blocking 
     Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--An elementary school, secondary school, 
     or library that fails to provide the certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to 
     receive or retain universal service assistance provided under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Certification for schools.--To be eligible to receive 
     universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), an 
     elementary or secondary school (or the school board or other 
     authority with responsibility for administration of that 
     school) shall certify to the Commission that it has--
       ``(A) selected a technology for computers with Internet 
     access to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to 
     minors; and
       ``(B) installed, or will install, and uses or will use, as 
     soon as it obtains computers with Internet access, a 
     technology to filter or block such material.
       ``(3) Certification for libraries.--
       ``(A) Libraries with more than 1 internet-accessing 
     computer.--To be eligible to receive universal service 
     assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), a library that has 
     more than 1 computer with Internet access intended for use by 
     the public (including minors) shall certify to the Commission 
     that it has installed and uses a technology to filter or 
     block material deemed to be harmful to minors on one or more 
     of its computers with Internet access.
       ``(B) Libraries with only 1 internet-accessing computer.--A 
     library that has only 1 computer with Internet access 
     intended for use by the public (including minors) is eligible 
     to receive universal service assistance under subsection 
     (h)(1)(B) even if it does not use a technology to filter or 
     block material deemed to be harmful to minors on that 
     computer if it certifies to the Commission that it employs a 
     reasonably effective alternative means to keep minors from 
     accessing material on the Internet that is deemed to be 
     harmful to minors.
       ``(4) Time for certification.--The certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made within 30 days of the 
     date of enactment of the Childrens' Internet Protection Act, 
     or, if later, within 10 days of the date on which any 
     computer with access to the Internet is first made available 
     in the school or library for its intended use.
       ``(5) Notification of cessation; additional internet-
     accessing computer.--
       ``(A) Cessation.--A library that has filed the 
     certification required by paragraph (3)(A) shall notify the 
     Commission within 10 days after the date on which it ceases 
     to use the filtering or blocking technology to which the 
     certification related.
       ``(B) Additional internet-accessing computer.--A library 
     that has filed the certification required by paragraph (3)(B) 
     that adds

[[Page 847]]

     another computer with Internet access intended for use by the 
     public (including minors) shall make the certification 
     required by paragraph (3)(A) within 10 days after that 
     computer is made available for use by the public.
       ``(6) Penalty for failure to comply.--A school or library 
     that fails to meet the requirements of this subsection is 
     liable to repay immediately the full amount of all universal 
     service assistance it received under subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(7) Local determination of material to be filtered.--For 
     purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the determination of what 
     material is to be deemed harmful to minors shall be made by 
     the school, school board, library or other authority 
     responsible for making the required certification. No agency 
     or instrumentality of the United States Government may--
       ``(A) establish criteria for making that determination;
       ``(B) review the determination made by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority; or
       ``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority in the 
     administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided by subsection (l), all 
     telecommunications''.

     SEC. 3. FCC TO ADOPT RULES WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

       The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules 
     implementing section 254(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 98. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Surface 
Transportation Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


        surface transportation board reauthorization act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 1999. I am pleased 
Senator Hollings, the Ranking member of Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and Majority Leader Lott, also a 
distinguished member of our Committee, have joined me in sponsoring 
this important legislation.
  The introduction of this bill on this, the first day in the 106th 
Congress for introducing legislation, is intended to demonstrate the 
firm commitment of the bill's sponsors to enact multi-year legislation 
extending the Board's authorization. Many of us worked toward enacting 
a reauthorization measure last year, but those efforts were 
unsuccessful due to matters generally unrelated to the Board itself. 
While those rail-related issues remain for some, I do not believe we 
should hold the STB's reauthorization hostage and believe we could 
consider dual-track measures--this reauthorization on the one hand and 
proposals for statutory changes on another. Although the dual-track did 
not succeed last Congress, I am hopeful that it can in the 106th 
Congress.
  The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 1999 is 
straight forward. First, it proposes to reauthorize the STB for the 
current fiscal year through 2002 and provide sufficient resources to 
ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its very serious 
responsibilities and duties. Second, it proposes that the Board's 
Chairmanship be subject to Senate confirmation like a host of other 
Boards and Commissions throughout the Federal governmental, including 
the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to name a few.
  Mr. President, I want to inform my colleagues that the Senate 
Commerce Committee intends to fully explore the resource needs of the 
Board and also consider limited proposals for statutory changes 
advocated by some members. I know the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, 
plans to hold hearings on the STB and continue the examination of STB 
actions affecting rail service and rail shipper problems which were 
initiated during the 105th Congress.
  As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper 
issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have received 
extensive and comprehensive examination under Subcommittee Chairman 
Hutchison's able leadership and will continue as important oversight 
issues under the Committee's jurisdiction. I strongly believe, however, 
specific rail service and rail shipper problems and cases are best 
resolved by the Board. That is why Congress must provide the Board with 
the resources and legal authority necessary for it to continue to carry 
out its statutory duties fully and fairly, and on a timely basis.
  The STB is one of our smallest Federal entities and it has very 
limited resources. It is imperative that we reauthorize the Board so 
that it can continue to produce the vast workload it has achieved since 
its inception in 1996. We must do our part to assist the Board in 
fulfilling its statutory duties responsibly and independently. The 
Administration and Congress must also take necessary action to ensure a 
fully constituted Board.
  I look forward to working on this important transportation 
legislation and hope my colleagues will agree to join with me and the 
other sponsors in expeditiously moving this necessary reauthorization 
through the legislative process.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the 
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). As I have 
said many times before, the Board performs a vital role regulating the 
interests of our railroad and other surface transportation industries. 
Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the 
Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many 
years, the Board with its small staff has put out more work, and higher 
quality work, than much larger agencies. Most significantly, unlike 
many other agencies, the Board is not afraid to tackle the hard issues, 
and to put out decisions that are fair, well-reasoned, and independent 
of political expediency. For example, the Board's unprecedented and 
focused actions in handling the recent rail service crisis in the West 
provided the appropriate mix of government intervention and private-
sector initiative.
  More recently, at the end of 1998, at the request of Chairman McCain 
and Senator Hutchison, the Board reviewed rail competition and issued 
several decisions in controversial cases, and made several 
recommendations to Congress, that reflect a balanced and comprehensive 
view of the transportation industry and the fundamental issues that 
confront it. The Board recently released its findings. In rendering 
these decisions, the Board, which is accountable to Congress, has acted 
responsibly and has provided a valuable service in resolving issues 
within its jurisdiction such as the determination of market dominance, 
and in raising others, such as open access, more appropriately 
addressed by Congress.
  As anyone who has read the comprehensive letter from Chairman Morgan 
to Senators McCain and Hutchison reporting on the Board's rail access 
and competition proceeding knows, the Board has acted creatively, 
aggressively, and decisively in tackling hard issues within its 
jurisdiction, and in making suggestions to Congress as to how to 
address remaining issues of contention between railroads and their 
shippers, and between railroads and their employees. One of its 
decisions finalized rules that for the first time provide various 
specific avenues for relief in cases of localized poor rail service, 
and another decision took steps to facilitate the review of rail rate 
reasonableness cases by eliminating certain evidentiary thresholds.
  Linda Morgan as Board Chairman pressed the railroad industry to be 
more directly accountable to the needs of their customers, and has 
requested them to reach out directly to their shippers and employees. 
This has allowed the railroads to reach more settlements with their 
customers and employees than they have in many years. I commend the 
Board for initiating government action that results in private sector 
settlements. Ultimately this sort of settlement has greater chance of 
realistic dispute resolution. Congress should feel fortunate to have

[[Page 848]]

an agency with the competence and credibility to move issues forward in 
such a positive direction.
  Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job, 
I am here today supporting the introduction of a reauthorization bill. 
I know that some tough legislative issues regarding transportation 
regulation may come our way this session, and I look forward to working 
with the Board and my colleagues on those matters. Whatever the 
resolution of those matters, we need the stability and continuity in 
addressing these issues that reauthorization legislation for the Board 
will provide.
  The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want 
to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who 
has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Board has been 
confronted with some of the most difficult and fundamental issues to 
challenge rail transportation in many years. The agency has met these 
issues head on with forthrightness and resolve, taking into account the 
interests of all parties. However, I am concerned for the Board's 
future; the Board has not had the opportunity to bring in new personnel 
to replace personnel that will be of retirement age. It is incumbent on 
us that we provide this agency the necessary resources to adequately 
train new personnel, and prepare them to address the rail and other 
surface issues of the future.
  I think that much credit is due the Board for facilitating more 
private-sector dialogue, initiative, and resolution than has ever been 
undertaken before, and for raising and tackling issues in ways that 
have never been undertaken before. Once again, I commend the Board on a 
job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board, and I 
enthusiastically support the reauthorization bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Ashcroft):
  S. 99. A bill to provide for continuing in the absence of regular 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000; to the Committee on 
Appropriations.


                    government shutdown act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I and Senator Hutchison, Senator 
Stevens, Senator Craig, Senator Warner, and Senator Ashcroft are 
introducing the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 1999. This bill 
creates a statutory continuing resolution as sort of a safety net 
funding mechanism, which would be triggered only if the Fiscal Year 
2000 appropriation acts do not become law or if there is no governing 
continuing resolution in place after the start of Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. President, this legislation is important. It must be done soon, 
and I intend to seek early action on this bill. I believe the lesson of 
the last 4 years is that we cannot allow the Government to be shut down 
again, nor can we allow the threat of a Government shutdown to be so 
imminent that we fiscal conservatives are forced to acquiesce to the 
appropriation of billions of dollars for projects that do not serve our 
nation's best interests.
  What this legislation does is ensure that the Government will not 
shut down and that Government shutdowns cannot be used for political 
gain. This safety net continuing resolution basically would set 
spending for fiscal year 2000 at 98 percent of 1999 funding levels. The 
resolution would take effect only if the Congress and the President 
have not completed their work on time.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear that this bill only applies to 
the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations. I believe that it should be 
expanded to make the statutory continuing resolution a permanent safety 
net to prevent disruptive government shutdowns.
  We all saw the effects of gridlock in the past. No one wins when the 
Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's 
suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the 
nation's business. The American people are tired of gridlock. They want 
the Government to work for them, not against them.
  Our Founding Fathers would have been ashamed of our inability to 
execute the power of the purse in a responsible fashion. I am sure they 
would have been quite shocked by the 27 days in late 1995 that the 
Government was shut down, the 13 continuing resolutions that had to be 
passed to provide temporary spending authority, and the almost $6 
billion in blackmail money that was given to the Administration to 
ensure that the Government did not shut down a third time in Fiscal 
Year 1996.
  Although Republicans shouldered the blame for the 1995 Government 
shutdown, President Clinton and his colleagues were equally at fault 
for using it for their political gain. Republicans were outmaneuvered 
by President Clinton because we did not realize that he was willing to 
use the budget process for his own political purposes.
  We also cannot let the threat of another Government shutdown force us 
to adopt another fiscal debacle like the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations 
Bill. The political finagling that led to the extra $20 billion in 
pork-barrel spending in that bill made mockery of the budget process 
and insulted the intention of the framers to give Congress the power of 
the purse. The only reason the Congress passed such a monstrosity was 
the ever-present specter of another government shutdown and Washington 
gridlock in an election year.
  The Government Shutdown Act of 1999 does not erode the power of the 
appropriators. It gives them ample opportunity to do their job. It is 
only if the appropriations process is not completed by the beginning of 
the fiscal year, that the safety net continuing resolution will go into 
effect. In addition, I emphasize that entitlements are fully protected 
in this legislation. The bill specifically states that entitlements 
such as Social Security--as obligated by law--will be paid regardless 
of what appropriations bills are passed or not passed.
  We saw in 1995 how politically motivated government shutdowns hit all 
Americans hard. In my State of Arizona, during the Government shutdown 
the Grand Canyon was closed for the first time in 76 years. I heard 
from people who worked close to the Grand Canyon. These were not 
Government employees. These were independent small business men and 
women. They told me that the shutdown cost them thousands of dollars 
because people could not go to the park. According to a CRS report, 
local communities near national parks alone lost an estimated $14.2 
million per day in tourism revenues as a direct result of the 
Government shutdown, for a total of nearly $400 million over the course 
of the shutdown.
  The cost of the last Government shutdown cannot be measured in just 
dollars and cents. During the 1995 shutdown, millions of Americans 
could not get crucial social services. For example, 10,000 new Medicare 
applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual 
office visits and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and 
assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in 
services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including 13 
million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 
children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head 
Start children--not to mention the new patients that were not accepted 
into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not 
attend national parks, or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums 
and monuments. And the list goes on and on.
  In addition, our Federal employees were left in fear wondering 
whether they would be paid, would they have to go to work, would they 
be able to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona, for 
example, of the 40,383 Federal employees, over 15,000 of them were 
furloughed in the 1995 Government shutdown.
  As bad as the 1995 government shutdown was, the fiscal nightmare 
known as the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, was equally 
repulsive. This 4,000-page, 40-pound, nonamendable, budget-busting bill 
provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal 
departments. To make matters worse, this bill exceeded the budget 
ceiling by $20 billion for what is

[[Page 849]]

euphemistically called emergency spending. Much of this so-called 
``emergency spending'' is really everyday, garden-variety, special 
interest, pork-barrel spending paid for by robbing billions from the 
budget surplus.
  This monstrous bill passed because Congress was forced to either pass 
it, or face another government shutdown. The Government Shutdown 
Prevention Act of 1999 would make it more difficult for opportunistic 
politicians to put the American public at risk by threatening to 
shutdown essential government functions if Congress cannot agree on 
spending priorities and policies.
  A 1991 GAO report confirmed that permanent funding lapse legislation 
is a necessity. In their report they stated, ``Shutting down the 
Government during temporary funding gaps is an inappropriate way to 
encourage compromise on the budget.''
  Let us show the American people that we have learned our lessons from 
the 1995 Government shutdown and the 1998 fiscal debacle. Passing this 
preventive measure will go a long way to restore America's faith that 
politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations. 
It will show our constituents that we will never again allow a 
Government shutdown or threat of a Government shutdown to be used for 
political gain.
  We anticipate strong support from the Leadership, and urge them to 
move this legislation forward as soon as possible. This is must-pass 
legislation. Neither party can afford another breach of faith with the 
American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being 
disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. That is why 
this legislation is so important. Never again, should the American 
public's hard-earned dollars be used as ransom to prevent a politically 
motivated government shutdown.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 100. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee 
have thirty days to report or be discharged.


                  the separate enrollment act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I will reintroduce the Separate 
Enrollment Act of 1999. This bil requires each targeted tax benefit or 
spending item in legislation to be enrolled as a separate bill before 
it is sent to the President. If the President chooses to veto one of 
these items, each of these vetoes would be returned to Congress 
separately for an override vote.
  Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the line item vote on 
Constitutional grounds in a 6-3 decision. I was very saddened by this 
decision. Polls from previous years indicate that 83 percent of the 
American people support giving the President the line-item veto 
authority. We need the line-item veto to restore balance to the federal 
budget process.
  The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act on the 
basis that the Constitution requires every bill to be presented to the 
President for his approval or disapproval. In other words, the decision 
was not based on the concept that transferring power to the President 
of the United States lacked constitutionally, but the fact that bills 
are to be sent to the President for approval in their entirety.
  Separate enrollment as a line-item veto tool is not a new concept. 
This concept is not controversial. The Senate adopted S. 4, a separate 
enrollment bill in the 104th Congress, by a vote of 69 to 29.
  Legal scholars contend that the separate enrollment concept is 
constitutional. Congress has the right to present a bill to the 
President of the United States. Separate enrollment merely addresses 
the question of what constitutes a bill. It does not erode or interfere 
with the presentment of the bill to the President. Under the rulemaking 
clause, Congress alone can determine the procedures for defining and 
enrolling a bill. Separate enrollment is constitutional and will 
clearly work.
  Separate enrollment, as a line-item veto tool, will be a vital force 
in eliminating wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel spending. 
Unfortunately, as we saw last year, pork-barrel spending is alive and 
well.
  On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the FY 1999 Omnibus 
Appropriations Bill--the worst example of pork-barrel spending in my 
memory. This was a 4,000 page, 40-pound, non-amendable, budget-busting 
bill which provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-
level federal departments. The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 
billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of 
which is really everyday, garden-variety, special-interest, pork-barrel 
spending, paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus.
  The omnibus spending bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in 
fiscal matters. It was a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the 
taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the 
best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a 
few.
  We cannot afford this magnitude of park-barrel spending when we have 
accumulated a multi-trillion dollar national debt. Right now, today, we 
use a huge portion of our federal budget to make the interest payments 
on the national debt. In fact, the annual interest payment almost 
equals the entire budget for national defense. We should be paying down 
the national debt, saving Social Security, and providing tax cuts for 
hard-working middle class Americans, not indulging in wasteful, 
unnecessary spending.
  The objective of the Separate Enrollment bill, and the Line-Item Veto 
before it, is to curb wasteful pork-barrel spending by giving the 
President the authority to eliminate individual spending items. The 
Separate Enrollment Act of 1999 will be our new tool to restore fiscal 
responsibility to the way we spend Americans' hard-earned dollars.
  This is not a partisan issue. The issue is fiscal responsibility. We 
have a President, we have 100 Senators, and we have 435 
Representatives. It is hard to place responsibility upon any one person 
for profligate spending. Thus, no one is accountable for our runaway 
budget process.
  Past Presidents have sought the line-time veto. Congress finally 
agreed in 1996, when we passed the Line-Item Veto Act, to give the 
President the ability to surgically remove wasteful spending for 
appropriations and authorization bills. It would also establish greater 
accountability in the Executive branch for fiscal decisions and provide 
much-needed checks and balances on Congressional spending sprees.
  Unfortunately when given the Line-Item Veto authority in 1997, the 
President failed to exercise the authority in a meaningful fashion. Of 
over $8 billion in wasteful spending, he excised $491 million from the 
annual appropriations bills. And then the Supreme Court struck the 
Line-Item Veto Act down.
  Restoring this power this year in the form of the Separate Enrollment 
Act would if exercised responsibly by the President, reduce the 
excesses of the congressional budget process that focus on locality-
specific earmarking and cater to special interests, not the national 
interest.
  Mr. President, I simply ask my colleagues to be fair and reasonable 
when addressing the issue of fiscal responsibility. The line-item veto, 
in the form of separate enrollment, is vital to curbing wasteful pork-
barrel spending and restoring the American people's respect for their 
elected representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Fitzgerald, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 101. A bill to promote trade in United States agricultural 
commodities, livestock, and value-added products, and to prepare for 
future bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations; to the Committee 
on Finance.


              UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
open foreign markets for U.S. agricultural exports and raise the 
profile of agriculture in our nation's trade agenda.

[[Page 850]]

By enacting the 1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we 
gave farmers the right to make planting decisions themselves, free from 
government controls. But the FAIR Act is a compact. Freedom to Farm 
means freedom to sell. In exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress 
promised its efforts to secure free, fair, and open markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. The importance of exports to U.S. agriculture 
has never been greater. This legislation will improve opportunities, 
allowing us to take advantage of our dominant position in world food 
trade.
  Each year, agricultural products make a positive contribution to our 
international balance of payments. No sector of the U.S. economy is 
more critically tied to international trade than agriculture. 
Approximately three out of ten acres of our agricultural production is 
exported. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export. We can only 
secure our farmers' and ranchers' future opportunities by removing 
trade barriers--those we impose on ourselves and those imposed by 
others.
  Mr. President, this bill addresses several items, none of which is 
more important than sanctions reform. Unilateral economic sanctions 
often keep our farmers out of major markets. Such sanctions do not 
preclude the targeted country from buying agricultural commodities 
elsewhere. Rather, sanctions often have a more profound effect on our 
own country. U.S. competitors are often quick to offset the effect of 
our sanctions, in the process harming U.S. commercial interests. 
Contracts are lost and our status as a reliable business partner 
suffers. A cardinal test of foreign policy is to determine that, when 
we use sanctions internationally, our actions do less harm to ourselves 
than to others. Unilateral food sanctions fail that test.
  Bans on food exports strike at the most basic human need, the 
availability of food. Authoritarian regimes can survive food sanctions. 
It is the people of these nations that suffer. The use of food as a 
weapon should, in most cases, be abandoned. This legislation exempts 
from unilateral economic sanctions humanitarian and commercial farm 
exports and gives the President the authority to waive the food 
exemption.
  Mr. President, sanctions reform is only one aspect of improving 
market access. Significant tariff and non-tariff barriers still inhibit 
the free flow of agricultural goods. The World Trade Organization will 
hold an important meeting later this year in our own country. The talks 
which will commence at this meeting offer an important opportunity to 
expand overseas markets for our agricultural exports. One goal of this 
legislation is to achieve more fair and open conditions of trade, and 
the bill I introduce today provides important guidelines for these 
upcoming negotiations. It aims to open foreign markets and eliminate 
unfair and negative trade policy. Furthermore, a ``special 301'' 
provision for agriculture is included in this bill. This language is 
similar to S.219 which was introduced by Senator Daschle and Senator 
Grassley in the 105th Congress and generated bi-partisan support within 
agriculture. It provides for an investigative process specifically 
tailored to agricultural trade. The U.S. Trade Representative will use 
this process to identify those countries which employ unfair trade 
practices against U.S. agricultural commodities and value-added 
products. Once in place, remedies which level the playing field are 
provided. This authority is important as we strive to break down trade 
barriers and eliminate practices which foreign countries use to bar 
U.S. agricultural exports.
  The most important thing we can give to farmers is the ability to 
export their products abroad. We can give to our farmers the enhanced 
ability to sell their products in existing and untapped markets. Mr. 
President, U.S. agriculture is the most productive in the world. This 
legislation will allow us to take advantage of that position. I ask 
unanimous consent that the legislation and a summary be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 101

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OBJECTIVES FOR AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the principal agricultural 
     trade negotiating objectives of the United States for future 
     multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, including the 
     World Trade Organization, shall be to achieve, on an 
     expedited basis, and to the maximum extent feasible, more 
     open and fair conditions for trade in agricultural 
     commodities by--
       (1) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules for 
     agricultural trade, including disciplines on restrictive or 
     trade-distorting import and export practices, including--
       (A) enhancing the operation and effectiveness of the 
     relevant Uruguay Round Agreements designed to define, deter, 
     and discourage the persistent use of unfair trade practices; 
     and
       (B) enforcing and strengthening rules of the World Trade 
     Organization regarding--
       (i) trade-distorting practices of state trading 
     enterprises; and
       (ii) the acts, practices, or policies of a foreign 
     government which unreasonably--
       (I) require that substantial direct investment in the 
     foreign country be made as a condition for carrying on 
     business in the foreign country;
       (II) require that intellectual property be licensed to the 
     foreign country or to any firm of the foreign country; or
       (III) delay or preclude implementation of a report of a 
     dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
       (2) increasing United States agricultural exports by 
     eliminating barriers to trade (including transparent and 
     nontransparent barriers);
       (3) eliminating other specific constraints to fair trade 
     and more open market access in foreign markets, such as 
     export subsidies, quotas, and other nontariff import 
     barriers;
       (4) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules that 
     address practices that unfairly limit United States market 
     access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the 
     detriment of the United States, including--
       (A) unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading 
     enterprises and other administrative mechanisms that result 
     in inadequate price transparency;
       (B) unjustified restrictions or commercial requirements 
     affecting new technologies, including biotechnology;
       (C) unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions; and
       (D) restrictive rules in the establishment and 
     administration of tariff-rate quotas;
       (5) ensuring that there are reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in international commerce by 
     encouraging countries to treat foreign buyers no less 
     favorably than domestic buyers of the commodity or product 
     involved; and
       (6) eliminating barriers for meeting the food needs of an 
     increasing world population through the use of biotechnology 
     by ensuring market access to United States commodities 
     derived from biotechnology that is scientifically defensible, 
     opposing the establishment of protectionist trade measures 
     disguised as health standards, and protesting continual 
     delays by other countries in their approval processes--which 
     constitute non-tariff trade barriers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the terms ``agricultural commodity'' 
     and ``United States agricultural commodity'' have the 
     meanings provided in section 102 (1) and (7) of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.

     SEC. 4. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, LIVESTOCK, AND PRODUCTS 
                   EXEMPT FROM SANCTIONS.

       (a) Definition--Unilateral Economic Sanction.--The term 
     ``unilateral economic sanction'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on economic activity, including 
     economic assistance, with respect to a foreign country or 
     foreign entity that is imposed by the United States for 
     reasons of foreign policy or national security, except in a 
     case in which the United States imposes the measure pursuant 
     to a multilateral regime and the other members of that regime 
     have agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
       (b) Exemption.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a 
     unilateral economic sanction imposed by the United States on 
     another country, the following shall be exempt from the 
     unilateral economic sanction--
       (A) programs administered through Public Law 480 (7 U.S.C. 
     1701 et. seq.);
       (B) programs administered through section 416 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (C) the program administered through section 1113 of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736-1); and
       (D) commercial sales and humanitarian assistance involving 
     agricultural commodities.

[[Page 851]]

       (2) Determination by president.--If the President 
     determines that the exemption under paragraph (1) should not 
     apply to the unilateral economic sanction for reasons of 
     foreign policy or national security, the President may 
     include the activities described in paragraph (1) in the 
     unilateral economic sanction.
       (c) Current Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the exemption 
     under subsection (b) shall apply to unilateral economic 
     sanctions that are in effect as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Presidential review.--The President shall, within 90 
     days of the date of enactment of this Act, review all 
     unilateral economic sanctions under this subsection to 
     determine whether the exemption under subsection (b) should 
     apply to the sanction.
       (3) Effective date.--The exemption under subsection (b) 
     shall become effective for unilateral economic sanctions that 
     are in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act unless the President 
     has determined that the exemption should not apply to the 
     sanction.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--If the President determines that the 
     exemption under subsection (b) should not apply to a 
     unilateral economic sanction, the President shall provide a 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry in the Senate--
       (A) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction reviewed 
     under subsection (c), within 15 days from the date of the 
     determination in paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
       (B) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction that is 
     imposed after the date of enactment of this Act, at the time 
     of the imposition of the sanction.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report shall contain--
       (A) an explanation why, because of reasons of foreign 
     policy or national security, the exemption should not apply 
     to the unilateral economic sanction; and
       (B) an assessment by the Secretary of Agriculture--
       (i) regarding export sales--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whether markets in the sanctioned 
     country or countries present a substantial trade opportunity 
     for export sales of a United States agricultural commodity; 
     or
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which 
     any country or countries to be sanctioned or likely to be 
     sanctioned are markets that accounted for, in the preceding 
     calendar year, more than 3 percent of all export sales from 
     the United States of an agricultural commodity;
       (ii) regarding the effect on United States agricultural 
     commodities--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for exports of United 
     States commodities in the sanctioned country or countries; 
     and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likelihood that 
     exports of agricultural commodities from the United States 
     will be affected by the unilateral economic sanction or by 
     retaliation by any country to be sanctioned or likely to be 
     sanctioned, and specific commodities which are most likely to 
     be affected;
       (iii) regarding producer income--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for increasing the 
     income of producers of the commodities involved; and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect 
     on incomes of producers of the commodities involved;
       (iv) regarding displacement of United States suppliers--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for increased 
     competition for United States suppliers of the agricultural 
     commodity in countries that are not subject to a sanction; 
     and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which 
     the unilateral economic sanction would permit foreign 
     suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (v) regarding the reputation of United States farmers as 
     reliable suppliers--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whether removing the sanction would 
     increase the reputation of United States farmers as reliable 
     suppliers of agricultural commodities in general, and of 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary; and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect 
     of the proposed sanction on the reputation of United States 
     farmers as reliable suppliers of agricultural commodities in 
     general, and of specific commodities identified by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)(3), this section shall become effective upon the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND CONSULTATION FOR 
                   AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

       Section 161 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2211) is 
     amended by adding at the end a new subsection (d) that reads 
     as follows--
       ``(d) Congressional Oversight Group for Agricultural 
     Negotiations.--
       ``(1) There is established a Congressional Oversight Group 
     for Agricultural Negotiations (Oversight Group) that shall 
     provide oversight and guidance with respect to agricultural 
     trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.

       ``(A) Subject to clauses (i) and (ii), the Oversight Group 
     shall consist of 3 members of the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and 3 members of the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
       ``(i) The President pro tempore of the Senate, upon the 
     recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, shall select two 
     members from the majority party, and one member from the 
     minority party, of the Senate.
       ``(ii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, upon 
     the recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Agriculture, shall select 2 members from the majority party, 
     and one member from the minority party, of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(B) Members of the House and Senate who are selected as 
     members of the Oversight Group shall be accredited by the 
     United States Trade Representative as official advisers to 
     the United States delegations to international conferences, 
     meetings, and negotiating sessions relating to agricultural 
     trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.
       ``(2) All negotiating proposals by the United States and 
     negotiations that affect agricultural trade shall be reviewed 
     by the Oversight Group prior to an agreement being initialed 
     by the President.
       ``(3) All information about negotiating proposals by the 
     United States and foreign countries affecting agricultural 
     trade negotiations shall be made available to the Oversight 
     Group by the United States Trade Representative.
       ``(4) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the United 
     States Trade Representative shall establish guidelines for 
     ensuring the useful and timely supply of information to the 
     Oversight Group and the communication of the oversight and 
     guidance by the Oversight Group to the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       ``(A) The guidelines shall establish procedures for the 
     United States Trade Representative to provide to the 
     Oversight Group--
       ``(i) information regarding the principal multilateral and 
     bilateral negotiating objectives affecting agricultural 
     trade, and the progress being made toward their achievement;
       ``(ii) information regarding the implementation, 
     administration, and effectiveness of recently concluded 
     multilateral and bilateral agricultural trade agreements and 
     the resolution of agricultural trade disputes;
       ``(iii) a schedule for an initial meeting, prior to the 
     commencement of negotiations involving agricultural trade, 
     between the Oversight Group and the United States Trade 
     Representative, about the objectives of the negotiations;
       ``(iv) written or oral briefings about the status of 
     ongoing negotiations involving agricultural trade;
       ``(v) prior to the President initialing the trade 
     agreement, written or oral briefings about the results of 
     negotiations involving agricultural trade;
       ``(vi) information about changes in United States laws that 
     are necessary as a result of the negotiations; and
       ``(vii) a schedule and procedure for the Oversight Group to 
     provide advice and guidance to the United States Trade 
     Representative regarding--
       ``(I) the negotiations involving agricultural trade; and
       ``(II) changes in United States laws that are necessary as 
     a result of the negotiations.
       ``(B) The United States Trade Representative shall meet 
     with the Oversight Group at a minimum on a quarterly basis, 
     and as needed during a negotiation involving agricultural 
     trade.
       ``(C) If determined necessary by either party, 
     consultations between the Oversight Group and the United 
     States Trade Representative may be conducted in executive 
     session.

     SEC. 6. SALE OR BARTER OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the amendment to section 
     203 of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954 (Pub. L. 480) made in section 208 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement And Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     101-127) was intended to allow the sale or barter of United 
     States agricultural commodities included in United States 
     food assistance only within the recipient country or 
     countries adjacent to the recipient country, unless such sale 
     or barter within the recipient country or adjacent 
     countries--
       (1) is not practicable; and
       (2) will not disrupt commercial markets for the 
     agricultural commodity involved.

     SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, 
                   LIVESTOCK, AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

       (a) Identification Required.--Chapter 8 of title I of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page 852]]



     ``SEC. 183. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT ENGAGE IN UNFAIR 
                   TRADE PRACTICES AFFECTING UNITED STATES 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the annual report is required to be 
     submitted to Congressional committees under section 181(b), 
     the United States Trade Representative (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the `Trade Representative') shall 
     identify--
       ``(1) those foreign countries that--
       ``(A) deny fair and equitable market access to United 
     States agricultural commodities through discriminatory 
     nontariff trade barriers;
       ``(B) employ unfair export subsidies that adversely affect 
     market share of United States exports of agricultural 
     commodities; or
       ``(C) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a 
     report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization; or
       ``(2) those foreign countries identified under paragraph 
     (1) that are determined by the Trade Representative to be 
     priority foreign countries.
       ``(b) Special Rules for Identification.--
       ``(1) Criteria.--In identifying priority foreign countries 
     under subsection (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall only 
     identify those foreign countries that--
       ``(A) engage in or have the most onerous or egregious acts, 
     policies, or practices that deny fair and equitable market 
     access to United States agricultural commodities;
       ``(B) engage in discriminatory nontariff trade barriers for 
     the importation of United States agricultural commodities 
     that are not based on public health concerns or cannot be 
     substantiated by reliable analytical methods;
       ``(C) use unfair export subsidies;
       ``(D) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a 
     report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
       ``(E) whose acts, policies, or practices described in 
     subparagraphs (A)-(D) have the greatest adverse impact 
     (actual or potential) on the relevant United States 
     agricultural commodities; or
       ``(F) that are not negotiating in good faith about adopting 
     fair and equitable trade practices, or making significant 
     progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, in 
     regards to United States agricultural commodities.
       ``(2) Consultation and consideration requirements.--In 
     identifying priority foreign countries under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall--
       ``(A) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and other 
     appropriate officers of the Federal Government; and
       ``(B) take into account information from such sources as 
     may be available to the Trade Representative and such 
     information as may be submitted to the Trade Representative 
     by interested persons, including information contained in 
     reports submitted under section 181(b) and petitions 
     submitted under section 302.
       ``(3) Factual basis requirement.--The Trade Representative 
     may identify a foreign country under subsection (a)(1) only 
     if the Trade Representative finds that there is a factual 
     basis for identifying the foreign country as engaging in a 
     trade practice under subsection (a)(1).
       ``(4) Consideration of historical factors.--In identifying 
     foreign countries under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (a), the Trade Representative shall take into account--
       ``(A) the history of agricultural trade relations with the 
     foreign country, including any previous identification under 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(B) the history of efforts of the United States, and the 
     response of the foreign country, to achieve fair trade 
     practices affecting trade in United States agricultural 
     commodities.
       ``(c) Revocations and Additional Identifications.--
       ``(1) Authority to act at any time.--If information 
     available to the Trade Representative indicates that such 
     action is appropriate, the Trade Representative may at any 
     time--
       ``(A) revoke the identification of any foreign country as a 
     priority foreign country under this section; or
       ``(B) identify any foreign country as a priority foreign 
     country under this section.
       ``(2) Revocation reports.--The Trade Representative shall 
     include in the semiannual report submitted to the Congress 
     under section 309(3) a detailed explanation of the reasons 
     for the revocation under paragraph (1) of the identification 
     of any foreign country as a priority foreign country under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``agricultural commodity'' and ``United States agricultural 
     commodity'' have the meanings provided in section 102 (1) and 
     (7) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.
       ``(e) Publication.--The Trade Representative shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a list of foreign countries 
     identified under subsection (a) and shall make such revisions 
     to the list as may be required by reason of the action under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(f) Annual Report.--The Trade Representative shall, not 
     later than the date by which countries are identified under 
     subsection (a), transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate, a report on the actions taken under this section 
     during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons 
     for such actions, including a description of progress made in 
     achieving fair and equitable market access for United States 
     agricultural commodities.
       (b) Remedial Actions to Unfair Trade Practices Involving 
     United States Agricultural Commodities, Livestock, and 
     Agricultural Products.--
       (1) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``section 183(a) or'' 
     after ``determines under'';
       (B) in subsection (b) by inserting ``section 183(a) or'' 
     after ``determines under'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``section; or'' and 
     inserting ``section;''
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``paragraph (4).'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (4); or''; and
       (iii) by adding a new subparagraph (E) that reads as 
     follows:
       ``(E) with respect to an investigation of a country 
     identified under section 183(a)--
       ``(I) take any action authorized under this subsection; and
       ``(II) to request that the Secretary of Agriculture target 
     the use of existing United States export programs that are 
     administered within the Department of Agriculture to the 
     commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice by the 
     priority foreign country.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 182 the following:

``Sec. 183. Identification of Countries That Engage in Unfair Trade 
              Practices Affecting United States Agricultural 
              Commodities.''
       (d) Investigation Required.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     302(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)(A)) 
     is amended by inserting ``or 183(a)(2)'' after ``section 
     182(a)(2)'' in the matter preceding clause (i).
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (D) of section 302(b)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by inserting ``concerning intellectual property 
     rights that is'' after ``any investigation''.
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 304(a)(3) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (B) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iii); and
       (C) by inserting immediately after clause (iii) the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) the foreign country involved in the investigation is 
     making substantial progress in drafting or implementing 
     legislative or administrative measures that ensure the 
     country engages in fair and equitable trade practices 
     affecting United States agricultural commodities.''.

     SEC.8. REALLOCATION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, on or 
     about April 1 and July 1 of each fiscal year determine 
     whether unobligated funds exist out of funds made available 
     for the fiscal year for the Export Enhancement Program.
       (b) Transfer to Food Assistance.
       The Secretary may, on or about April 1 and July 1 of each 
     fiscal year, with respect to any unobligated funds identified 
     under subsection (a), apply the funds to--
       (1) one or more of the programs administered through Public 
     Law 480 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.);
       (2) the purchase of agricultural commodities for donation 
     through one of the programs administered through section 416 
     of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431); and
       (3) programs administered through Title II of the Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621-5641).
       (c) Use Within Same Fiscal Year. All funds identified under 
     subsection (a) shall be obligated within the same fiscal 
     year. Such funds may not be transferred under subsection (b) 
     in a fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of the 
     determination in subsection (a).
                                  ____


      Summary of the United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999

       1. Goals for Trade Negotiations--United States objectives 
     for future multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations 
     affecting agriculture, including the World Trade Organization 
     (WTO), are to--increase market access for United States 
     agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-added 
     products, particularly for new products derived from 
     biotechnology; eliminate nontariff import barriers such as 
     quotas, discriminatory tariff-rate quotas, and unjustified 
     sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions; eliminate export 
     subsidies; eliminate trade-distorting practices of state 
     trading enterprises; enforce current WTO rules and develop 
     new rules that allow increased market access; and strengthen 
     rules for implementing WTO dispute panel decisions.
       2. Sanctions Reform--International trade in United States 
     agricultural commodities, livestock, value-added products, 
     and food assistance, are exempted from unilateral economic 
     sanctions imposed by the United

[[Page 853]]

     States, if the transaction entails commercial sales or 
     humanitarian assistance involving agricultural products.
       If the President determines that this exemption should not 
     apply to a current or future sanction because of foreign 
     policy or national security considerations, the President can 
     override the exemption. The President and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture must provide a report to Congress for each 
     sanction for which the President determines the exemption 
     should not apply.
       3. Congressional Agricultural Oversight Group--A 
     Congressional Oversight Group, made up of House and Senate 
     Agriculture Committee members, is established as a consulting 
     and advisory group with the United States Trade 
     Representative for future WTO and other multilateral and 
     bilateral trade negotiations.
       4. Food Assistance Resolution--A Sense of Congress 
     resolution regarding the monetization of agricultural 
     commodities in United States food assistance is included. The 
     1996 Farm Bill allowed such monetization. The resolution 
     states that monetization should occur only in the recipient 
     country or in adjacent countries, unless this is not 
     practicable.
       5. Super 301 for Agriculture--A procedure is established 
     within the Office of the United States Trade Representative 
     to identify countries that engage in unfair trade practices 
     against U.S. agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-
     added products. Unfair trade practices in this context are 
     discriminatory nontariff trade barriers, unfair export 
     subsidies, and refusal by a country to implement a decision 
     of a WTO dispute panel. This procedure parallels an 
     investigative procedure that exists in current U.S. trade law 
     for all U.S. products. If the Trade Representative makes such 
     a determination, the Trade Representative is authorized to 
     adopt remedies already provided in United States trade law, 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to target 
     the use of existing export programs within USDA to the 
     commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice.
       6. Commodity Program Reallocation--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture, for each fiscal year, is given the discretion to 
     reallocate unobligated funds of the Export Enhancement 
     Program to one of the Public Law 480 food assistance 
     programs, the Food for Progress program, or one of the 
     section 416 commodity donation programs. All affected funds 
     must be obligated within the same fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 102. A bill to provide that the Secretary of the Senate and the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives shall include an estimate of 
Federal retirement benefits for each Member of Congress in their 
semiannual reports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


            THE CONGRESSIONAL PENSION DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1999 which would require the 
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
to disclose information relating to the pensions of Members of 
Congress. This legislation would require these officers to include in 
their semiannual reports to Congress detailed information relating to 
the Members pensions. The semiannual reports would then be available to 
the public for inspection.
  The reports would include the individual pension contributions of 
Members; an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the 
earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity 
payments by reason of retirement; and any other information necessary 
to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement 
benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of 
service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement.
  The purpose of this legislation is to afford citizens their rightful 
opportunity to learn how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers 
are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation their 
elected officials are being paid, they are also entitled to make 
decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation.
  My bill would make this information conveniently available to the 
public. I believe that this bill would eliminate the present shroud of 
secrecy which has surrounded the congressional pension system and give 
the public better access to information regarding their representatives 
in Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and section by section analysis 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 102

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE OF ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1965 (2 U.S.C. 104a; Public Law 88-454; 
     78 Stat. 550) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives shall include in each semiannual 
     report submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members 
     of Congress, as applicable--
       ``(A) the total amount of individual contributions made by 
     each Member to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund and the Thrift Savings Fund under chapters 83 and 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for all Federal service 
     performed by the Member as a Member of Congress and as a 
     Federal employee;
       ``(B) an estimate of the annuity each Member would be 
     entitled to receive under chapters 83 and 84 of such title 
     based on the earliest possible date to receive annuity 
     payments by reason of retirement (other than disability 
     retirement) which begins after the date of expiration of the 
     term of office such Member is serving; and
       ``(C) any other information necessary to enable the public 
     to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each 
     Member based on various assumptions of years of service and 
     age of separation from service by reason of retirement.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


Section-by-Section Analysis of The Congressional Pension Disclosure Act 
                                of 1999


 A bill to publicly disclose Federal retirement benefits of Members of 
                                Congress

     Section 1 (a). Amending legislation.
       This section provides that Section 105(a) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1965 is amended to 
     add the following new paragraph:
       ``The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives shall include in each semiannual report 
     submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members of 
     Congress, as applicable:''
     Section 1 (A). Contributions to retirement funds.
       The semiannual report would state the total amount of 
     contributions many by each Member to the Federal retirement 
     plans (FERS or CSRS) while they performed Federal service as 
     a Member of Congress and/or a Federal employee.
     Section 1 (B). Estimate of annuity.
       The semiannual report would include an estimate of the 
     annuity each member would be entitled to receive--based upon 
     the earliest possible date of retirement (other than 
     disability retirement). This would be calculated based upon 
     the expiration of the term of office the Member is serving.
     Section 1 (C). Additional information.
       Included in the semiannual report would be any additional 
     information that would help the public accurately compute the 
     Federal retirement benefits of members based on years of 
     service and age of separation from service by reason of 
     retirement.
     Section 1(b). Effective date.
       The bill would take effect 1 year after the date of 
     enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 103. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate the temporary increase in unemployment tax; to the Committee 
on Finance.


        legislation to repeal the temporary unemployment surtax

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to repeal 
the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) surtax.
  The ``temporary'' surtax was enacted in 1976 by Congress to repay the 
general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment 
trust fund. Although the borrowings were repaid in 1987, Congress has 
continued to extend the surtax in tax bill after tax bill.
  Since 1987, Congress has used extension of the surtax to help raise 
revenue to pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently 
extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. The tax takes money out of 
the private economy for no valid reason.
  By repealing the surtax, Congress will honor a promise that it made 
when the surtax was first enacted. Small businesses were told 
repeatedly that the tax was temporary and would be repealed when it was 
no longer needed to

[[Page 854]]

finance the unemployment tax system. Clearly a tax is not temporary 
when it has already been in place for over twenty years. I would 
suggest at a minimum that if we are going to keep extending this tax, 
that we be honest with the American worker and small business owner and 
stop calling this tax ``temporary.''
  Based on the original purpose, the surtax is no longer needed. The 
economy is experiencing the highest level of employment in decades, and 
all state unemployment funds have surpluses. It is inappropriate for 
the government to continue to raise excess unemployment taxes and then 
use the surplus for purposes completely unrelated to unemployment.
  Repeal of the temporary unemployment surtax will also be beneficial 
to small businesses. The surtax is especially hard on the small 
businesses because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is 
added directly to the employer's payroll costs. In fact, according to 
the National Federation of Independent Business, payroll taxes are the 
fastest growing federal tax burden on small business. It is also 
important to note that the payroll taxes must be paid whether the 
business experiences a profit or a loss.
  As a former small businessman myself, I am particularly aware of this 
fact. I suspect that my view is similar to the view of many small 
business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is 
high and the surtax is necessary. However, it is totally unjustified 
when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades.
  Repeal of the 0.2 percent surtax will reduce the tax burden on 
employers and workers by $6 billion over the next five years.
  Lower payroll taxes mean higher wages for workers. Although the 
employer appears to fully pay for the unemployment surtax and other 
payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost is 
actually passed to workers in the form of lower wages.
  Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains 
the strongest and most vibrant in the world. Low taxes reduce 
unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and 
several charts that demonstrate the surpluses in each state fund be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 103

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1 REPEAL OF TEMPORARY UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

       Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to rate of unemployment tax) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2007'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``1999''; and
       (2) by striking ``2008'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``2000''.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 1998]

                                 FUTile

       The nation's secondary schools are gearing up to spend 
     several hundred million in federal grants on ``school to 
     work'' programs that purport to reduce youth unemployment. 
     Indeed, under the 1993 School to Work Act, federal and state 
     bureaucrats are running around the country like so many job 
     fairies ``creating'' employment with a wave of the 
     bureaucratic wand. If job growth is really what the 
     government is after though, we know a simpler way to achieve 
     it: kill off FUTA.
       Employers know FUTA as the 0.8% payroll tax they must pay 
     to Washington on the first $7,000 of every employee's wages. 
     But this ridiculous-sounding levy--the letters stand for 
     Federal Unemployment Tax Act--is more than just another 
     troubling mandate. It is an object lesson in how a federal 
     employment program can run amok.
       When lawmakers originally imposed the tax to build a 
     network of unemployment services in 1939, they were 
     responding to an extraordinary problem: joblessness ranged 
     close to 18%. Yet long after the Depression faded, FUTA 
     remained on the books.
       Like most other New Deal acronyms, FUTA achieved tax 
     immortality, surviving decades of prosperity. The mid-1970's' 
     spike in unemployment created an excuse to ``temporarily'' 
     increase FUTA rates. Needless to say, that increase was never 
     reversed. In-deed, the third largest tax hike in the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997 was an extension of a FUTA surtax to 2007. 
     Today, joblessness is at a historic low. Yet FUTA tax rates 
     are higher than they were in 1975, when unemployment was 
     8.5%.
       Then there's the question of what FUTA revenues actually 
     pay for. FUTA isn't supposed to do anything as useful as pay 
     unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off. 
     Employers are the ones who have to do that. No, FUTA money is 
     earmarked toward salaries for bureaucrats in state 
     unemployment offices. This is a dubious project in any era, 
     and an absurd one in a time of worker shortage like this one.
       And here's the kicker: Much of the FUTA money doesn't even 
     make it to these superfluous employment offices. Mark Wilson 
     of the Heritage Foundation found that little more than half 
     of the $6.1 billion in FUTA revenues collected in 1997 ended 
     up being spent on FUTA's official mandate. The rest of the 
     money went straight to the federal government's ``general 
     revenues,'' traded against Treasury IOUs. In other words, 
     right into the government's maw.
       Washington robs FUTA in the same way it steals money from 
     Social Security's trust fund till. As the years pass, of 
     course, the burgeoning economy is making FUTA an even better 
     cash machine. Today the FUTA trust fund contains $23.1 
     billion, about double what it held just three years ago. No 
     wonder lawmakers get all sanctimonious about FDR when the 
     topic of limiting FUTA comes up.
       This is a shame, since FUTA does indeed kill more jobs than 
     it finds. The FUTA tax, like Social Security, the minimum 
     wage, or other mandates, hits businesses on the margin, where 
     additional work is created. In times of downsizing, as we saw 
     in the early 1990s, these bugaboos drive layoffs.
       The National Federation of Independent Business, a small 
     business lobby, lists FUTA as one of the big employment 
     burdens. FUTA also punishes workers who do have jobs, since 
     employers pass along the costs to them in the form of lower 
     wages. Sen. Wayne Allard (R., Colo.) has put forward 
     legislation to pare FUTA. It is a reform long past due.
                                  ____


                    STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION SYSTEM RESERVES AND RATIO OF RESERVES TO TOTAL WAGES BY STATE AND YEAR, 1991-1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Net reserves as of Dec. 31 of each year (thousands)          Ratio of year-end reserves to total wages
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------                  (percent)
                 State                                                                                      --------------------------------------------
                                             1995         1994         1993          1992          1991        1995     1994     1993     1992     1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................     $534,470     $551,842     $570,118      $550,280      $585,725      1.61     1.77     1.94     1.96     2.24
Alaska.................................      201,017      210,563      232,911       232,320       243,155      3.56     3.81     4.32     4.57     4.98
Arizona................................      534,640      432,449      368,782       372,423       437,667      1.48     1.33     1.26     1.36     1.71
Arkansas...............................      200,866      169,795      134,432        81,340       103,629      1.12     1.02     0.87     0.55     0.76
California.............................    2,104,220    2,092,695    2,450,402     2,786,713     4,190,197      0.68     0.72     0.87     0.99     1.52
Colorado...............................      480,582      434,482      390,435       339,246       312,036      1.22     1.21     1.15     1.10     1.09
Connecticut............................      116,692        3,311        1,062      (653,215)     (353,767)     0.27     0.01     0.00     0.00     0.00
Delaware...............................      271,807      244,013      225,943       218,719       223,685      3.24     3.14     3.05     3.04     3.20
District of Columbia...................       68,636       41,141        5,937       (19,286)       12,465      0.57     0.35     0.05     0.00     0.12
Florida................................    1,806,432    1,621,614    1,505,570     1,443,603     1,691,814      1.53     1.47     1.45     1.47     1.84
Georgia................................    1,453,118    1,281,507    1,094,999       965,870       962,324      2.03     1.95     1.79     1.68     1.81
Hawaii.................................      213,496      232,859      310,155       362,123       420,991      2.07     2.26     3.01     3.57     4.39
Idaho..................................      243,090      245,096      247,823       240,141       243,573      2.88     3.14     3.49     3.67     4.09
Illinois...............................    1,629,210    1,247,066      851,918       847,622     1,172,283      1.22     0.99     0.71     0.74     1.08
Indiana................................    1,228,070    1,132,343    1,024,658       941,632       899,139      2.16     2.11     2.05     1.99     2.02
Iowa...................................      725,149      708,450      655,066       615,474       594,626      3.10     3.23     3.20     3.16     3.27
Kansas.................................      704,008      735,717      658,053       605,827       571,904      2.77     3.20     3.03     2.89     2.91
Kentucky...............................      470,826      425,682      402,311       364,287       357,940      1.61     1.55     1.57     1.49     1.58
Louisiana..............................    1,003,378      868,819      689,382       600,917       559,975      3.15     2.92     2.47     2.22     2.15
Maine..................................       95,289       74,621       51,403        35,108        77,553      1.06     0.87     0.62     0.44     1.01
Maryland...............................      605,415      408,994      219,071       145,839       224,970      1.36     0.96     0.54     0.37     0.59
Massachusetts..........................      527,273      184,933     (115,987)     (379,918)     (234,742)     0.70     0.26     0.00     0.00     0.00
Michigan...............................    1,497,688      866,906      364,530       (72,492)     (166,509)     1.45     0.90     0.42     0.00     0.00
Minnesota..............................      459,621      369,776      257,584       224,091       309,473      0.94     0.80     0.59     0.54     0.80

[[Page 855]]

 Mississippi............................      551,318      490,392      410,259       345,352       348,593      3.19     2.98     2.74     2.48     2.69
Missouri...............................      196,933      118,466       (7,749)        3,101       199,473      0.40     0.26     0.00    0.001     0.30
Montana................................      122,242      110,910      104,415        96,370        91,119      2.08     1.95     1.91     1.87     1.91
Nebraska...............................      194,283      188,365      171,938       160,713       146,184      1.45     1.51     1.49     1.46     1.42
Nevada.................................      297,866      289,804      238,398       233,667       295,919      1.69     1.70     1.68     1.79     2.46
New Hampshire..........................      250,884      211,580      164,455       129,582       127,995      2.25     2.06     1.71     1.38     1.46
New Jersey.............................    1,987,790    1,947,033    1,965,236     2,439,970     2,564,278      2.06     2.12     2.23     2.86     3.16
New Mexico.............................      354,874      317,264      271,194       238,999       220,932      3.25     3.13     2.91     2.77     2.73
New York...............................      248,978      190,467      129,409       213,914     1,191,450      0.12     0.10     0.07     0.12     0.69
North Carolina.........................    1,531,117    1,555,329    1,514,674     1,387,170     1,373,719      2.27     2.49     2.60     2.52     2.70
North Dakota...........................       57,415       58,641       56,267        50,306        50,914      1.41     1.55     1.59     1.51     1.64
Ohio...................................    1,600,533    1,166,837      845,054       602,464       647,410      1.46     1.13     0.88     0.65     0.74
Oklahoma...............................      521,683      474,866      437,800       418,907       426,398      2.32     2.21     2.13     2.10     2.24
Oregon.................................      905,985      994,533    1,096,695     1,054,524     1,043,810      3.21     3.86     4.63     4.71     4.98
Pennsylvania...........................    1,914,777    1,518,999    1,105,425       807,828     1,155,988      1.78     1.48     1.12     0.84     1.26
Puerto Rico............................      634,291      674,663      730,873       749,255       750,020      6.71     7.54     8.39     9.05     9.64
Rhode Island...........................      110,086      119,262      119,294       104,498       143,617      1.33     1.51     1.56     1.41     2.03
South Carolina.........................      556,650      502,237      467,494       433,442       455,097      1.84     1.79     1.77     1.73     1.92
South Dakota...........................       51,622       51,208       49,773        50,416        49,701      1.09     1.16     1.23     1.34     1.45
Tennessee..............................      822,821      747,477      672,261       603,130       612,653      1.66     1.62     1.58     1.50     1.67
Texas..................................      584,866      480,322      445,633       586,472       942,734      0.34     0.30     0.30     0.41     0.69
Utah...................................      468,030      411,411      366,524       342,146       327,893      2.93     2.86     2.82     2.83     2.96
Vermont................................      206,720      195,418      183,025       180,730       192,675      4.51     4.51     4.37     4.49     5.05
Virginia...............................      788,787      658,588      553,441       506,641       591,166      1.27     1.13     1.01     0.97     1.19
Virgin Islands.........................       40,064       40,843       51,575        47,416        43,241      6.86     6.67     6.60     7.32     7.31
Washington.............................    1,417,701    1,565,417    1,743,146     1,766,006     1,707,604      2.93     3.45     4.05     4.18     4.40
West Virginia..........................      164,036      161,671      154,512       140,517       157,124      1.44     1.47     1.49     1.38     1.62
Wisconsin..............................    1,503,641    1,400,119    1,241,918     1,194,553     1,171,822      3.06     3.03     2.87     2.90     3.07
Wyoming................................      142,310      136,755      127,332       109,826        98,952      4.22     4.15     4.08     3.71     3.48
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................   35,403,296   31,343,551   28,187,816    27,111,772    31,494,605      1.40     1.32     1.25     1.25     1.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference between detail and totals due to rounding 1995 data subject to revision. Ratio of reserves to wages not calculated for States with negative
  balances.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Prepared by the National Foundation for U.C. & W.C., June 1997.


                                 FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CY96.4, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revenue (12   TF Balance               Total loans
                     State                         mos) (in       (in       Mos. in TF      (in       Loans/cov.
                                                  thousands)   thousands)                thousands)    employee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................      134,029      483,472         27.3            0         0.00
Alaska.........................................      109,089      194,188         19.8            0         0.00
Arizona........................................      223,143      627,059         46.3            0         0.00
Arkansas.......................................      169,670      202,784         13.0            0         0.00
California.....................................    3,590,823    2,877,452         11.7            0         0.00
Colorado.......................................      187,897      510,956         32.5            0         0.00
Connecticut....................................      592,538      277,861          7.4            0         0.00
Delaware.......................................       68,409      258,468         31.9            0         0.00
Dist. of Colum.................................      133,380       99,368         12.2            0         0.00
Florida........................................      677,796    1,947,557         35.2            0         0.00
Georgia........................................      382,294    1,634,073         67.0            0         0.00
Hawaii.........................................      179,540      211,267         13.3            0         0.00
Idaho..........................................      105,900      266,228         32.1            0         0.00
Illinois.......................................    1,199,050    1,638,560         15.2            0         0.00
Indiana........................................      238,343    1,273,086         58.0            0         0.00
Iowa...........................................      133,905      718,845         45.9            0         0.00
Kansas.........................................       42,487      651,074         52.6            0         0.00
Kentucky.......................................      234,997      501,304         25.7            0         0.00
Louisiana......................................      204,469    1,131,052         94.7            0         0.00
Maine..........................................      122,601      112,122         12.5            0         0.00
Maryland.......................................      421,722      690,786         22.9            0         0.00
Massachusetts..................................    1,130,136      914,631         14.0            0         0.00
Michigan.......................................    1,233,803    1,830,928         21.8            0         0.00
Minnesota......................................      386,523      513,033         16.4            0         0.00
Mississippi....................................       99,520      553,222         50.0            0         0.00
Missouri.......................................      381,576      307,507         12.8            0         0.00
Montana........................................       58,841      125,900         24.9            0         0.00
Nebraska.......................................       41,748      195,210         44.8            0         0.00
Nevada.........................................      177,064      348,278         28.6            0         0.00
New Hampshire..................................       41,781      268,011         91.7            0         0.00
New Jersey.....................................    1,448,896    2,028,818         13.1            0         0.00
New Mexico.....................................       85,729      385,531         59.6            0         0.00
New York.......................................    2,211,440      470,400          2.8            0         0.00
North Carolina.................................      113,075    1,355,565         39.6            0         0.00
North Dakota...................................       24,364       50,072         19.1            0         0.00
Ohio...........................................      781,640    1,750,968         28.8            0         0.00
Oklahoma.......................................      128,728      563,895         64.3            0         0.00
Oregon.........................................      384,046      941,419         28.9            0         0.00
Pennsylvania...................................    1,612,406    2,031,947         14.9            0         0.00
Puerto Rico....................................      149,262      595,703         31.8            0         0.00
Rhode Island...................................      184,004      116,240          7.4            0         0.00
South Carolina.................................      208,829      603,410         36.2            0         0.00
South Dakota...................................       12,291       49,542         39.9            0         0.00
Tennessee......................................      284,220      826,526         30.8            0         0.00
Texas..........................................    1,014,460      642,233          7.7            0         0.00
Utah...........................................       96,262      523,880         89.2            0         0.00
Vermont........................................       48,595      218,259         49.5            0         0.00
Virginia.......................................      260,890      897,198         55.4            0         0.00
Virgin Islands.................................        9,345       42,069         51.5            0         0.00
Washington.....................................      644,606    1,332,508         19.7            0         0.00
West Virginia..................................      130,182      157,345         12.8            0         0.00
Wisconsin......................................      445,248    1,556,922         37.2            0         0.00
Wyoming........................................       28,401      147,087         54.0            0         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 856]]


              FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CYQ, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Revenues,                   TF as
                                     last 12     TF balance   percent of
              State                 months (in      (in      total wages
                                    thousands)   thousands)      \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................     $140,978     $451,425         1.21
Alaska...........................      131,645      202,416         3.46
Arizona..........................      224,651      741,050         1.70
Arkansas.........................      183,101      204,319         1.03
California.......................    3,367,845    3,737,815         1.05
Colorado.........................      198,748      574,413         1.22
Connecticut......................      637,125      532,692         1.06
Delaware.........................       75,692      279,173         2.86
District of Col..................      132,481      135,627         0.94
Florida..........................      685,668    2,090,222         1.55
Georgia..........................      350,964    1,797,102         2.13
Hawaii...........................      186,510      216,658         2.04
Idaho............................       99,412      280,382         3.00
Illinois.........................    1,226,328    1,742,968         1.16
Indiana..........................      268,016    1,362,463         2.15
Iowa.............................      144,156      727,327         2.79
Kansas...........................       46,633      606,735         2.16
Kentucky.........................      269,075      571,366         1.71
Louisiana........................      213,963    1,275,668         3.55
Maine............................      118,089      136,019         1.35
Maryland.........................      349,967      720,552         1.42
Massachusetts....................    1,222,144    1,446,164         1.64
Michigan.........................    1,184,719    2,222,714         1.93
Minnesota........................      398,707      564,628         0.98
Mississippi......................      166,992      563,901         2.95
Missouri.........................      381,802      417,706         0.75
Montana..........................       65,306      135,604         2.11
Nebraska.........................       57,932      205,727         1.33
Nevada...........................      224,837      387,888         1.79
New Hampshire....................       26,426      278,296         2.16
New Jersey.......................    1,459,837    2,384,916         2.21
New Mexico.......................       99,244      431,159         3.61
New York.........................    2,402,806      990,176         0.43
North Carolina...................      253,942    1,301,184         1.67
North Dakota.....................       26,246       38,057         0.83
Ohio.............................      719,622    1,874,943         1.53
Oklahoma.........................      107,585      608,942         2.36
Oregon...........................      462,961    1,068,843         3.13
Pennsylvania.....................    1,587,542    2,253,703         1.87
Puerto Rico......................      203,816      586,659         5.30
Rhode Island.....................      248,423      160,044         1.78
South Carolina...................      219,733      687,060         2.02
South Dakota.....................       14,186       48,939         0.91
Tennessee........................      296,749      847,842         1.52
Texas............................    1,014,596      706,577         0.35
Utah.............................       97,876      572,849         2.97
Vermont..........................       50,047      233,537         4.59
Virgin Islands...................        7,693       45,434         6.82
Virginia.........................      222,448      979,376         1.35
Washington.......................      810,440    1,447,195         2.42
West Virginia....................      139,030      165,917         1.37
Wisconsin........................      475,595    1,632,214         2.95
Wyoming..........................       31,217      158,573         4.26
                                  --------------------------------------
United States....................   23,731,544   43,833,157         1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on estimated wages for the most recent 12 months.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 105. A bill to deauthorize certain portions of the project for 
navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 106. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
to deauthorize the remainder of the project at East Boothbay Harbor, 
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 107. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Boothbay 
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 108. A bill to modify, and to deauthorize certain portions of, the 
project for navigation at Wells Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


    legislation to deauthorize certain portions of the project for 
                    navigation in the state of maine

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for 
their support in the last Congress for my legislation on behalf of the 
towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, Maine, which passed the Senate in 
the 105th Congress. S. 1531 sought to deauthorize certain portions of 
the navigational project for Bass Harbor, and S. 1532 sought to 
deauthorize the final portions of East Boothbay Harbor.
  I also want to thank my colleagues for their support and Senate 
passage of the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1998, or WRDA, which not only included these two stand alone bills, 
but also contained legislation that deauthorized the Federal Navigation 
Project area within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. The 
town's representatives had voted unanimously to request this 
deauthorization of the FNP area.
  Also, WRDA was amended on the floor to add language that would allow 
for the dredging of Wells Harbor. After many contentious years, this 
important federal project is set to go forward because a historic 
Memorandum of Agreement was reached amongst the town of Wells, the Save 
our Shores Wells coalition, the Wells Chamber of Commerce and the Maine 
Audubon Society.
  Bass Harbor has the greatest concentration of fishing boats on Mt. 
Desert Island and all mooring spaces are currently full, with a long 
waiting list to obtain future moorings. When the townspeople approached 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit for expansion, they 
were told that no improvements could be made until the federal project 
area boundary was moved to the proper location by legislative action. I 
am happy to do this on their behalf. The Selectmen, Town Manager, and 
Harbor Committee will not be working with the Corps and the State in 
anticipation of having the harbor dredged, which last occurred in 1966, 
so that they may make space available for more and larger boats.
  The bill for East Boothbay Harbor deauthorize the remainder of the 
federal navigational project at Boothbay Harbor. The current marina 
owners purchased the former shipbuilding yard in East Boothbay in 1993 
and have since turned it into a full service marina. In the process of 
getting all the permits together for further economic development, the 
marina discovered that parts of the harbor, while no longer used as 
such, were still deemed a federal navigation project created back in 
1913, when mine sweepers and other ships were being built there for 
World War I. Because part of the federal navigation project is still 
considered active, the Corps told the town that nothing could be done 
in the water until the entire area was deauthorized. My bill takes care 
of this final deauthorization, the rest of which was accomplished in 
the last reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, but 
the coordinates were ultimately found to be inaccurate. This 
legislation, with the assistance of the Corps, addresses that small 
section still requiring deauthorization.
  The Town of Boothbay Harbor, Maine has requested legislation be 
enacted that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project area 
within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. To this end, I am 
introducing a bill, drafted with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, and approved unanimously by the town's representatives.
  I am also introducing legislation to address the dredging of Wells 
Harbor, which will deepen and maintain the harbor and, at the same 
time, protect an important federal wildlife refuge. The language, which 
was also included in the Senate passed WRDA of 1998, gives the Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) the authority to proceed with the project. 
The dredging of this federal project, contentious since 1988 because of 
concerns from environmental groups, is now set to go forward because of 
a historic Memorandum of Agreement that has been reached amongst the 
community and town officials, and the Maine Audubon Society. 
Interestingly, approximately 185,000 cubic yards of the sand to be 
dredged will be used to nourish adjacent eroding beaches in the town of 
Wells, so the project is a win-win situation for all concerned.
  My stand alone bill, which will also once again be incorporated into 
WRDA, will allow the Corps to conduct maintenance dredging in Wells 
Harbor based on a design capacity for the harbor of 150 vessels, of 
which approximately 10 percent are commercial fishing boats. A small 
craft fleet of 150 is the original congressionally authorized design 
capacity for the harbor, and was a crucial part of the Agreement.
  In addition, all parties to the settlement have agreed to a 
modification of the federal project, requiring Congressional action, 
that would realign and redesignate the existing federal channel, 
anchorage, and realign with the harbor settling basin, so as to 
maximize the use of the natural channels in the harbor for navigation 
and anchorage purposes. This will eliminate the impact of dredging on 
the intertidal sand bar, which is considered to be the geologically 
stabilizing force for the estuary. The language, drafted with Corps 
assistance, will create a new settling basin in the outer harbor, 
relocate the inner harbor channel to the east side of the harbor, and 
redesignate portions of the current channel and settling basin as 
anchorage.
  The State of Maine issued water quality certification and coastal 
zone

[[Page 857]]

management consistency in November of 1998, conditioned on the project 
modifications in my legislation and that were passed by the Senate in 
the WRDA of 1998.
  Another critical component of the Agreement for all the parties is 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request, also supported by the 
Maine Audubon Society, that the Corps expand the area covered by the 
bathymetric survey work that it will already be conducting as part of 
the monitoring program for the harbor. The State and the parties have 
agreed that the additional survey will provide important and useful 
information about the erosional impacts of dredging in the harbor. I 
have asked the Corps to make a good faith effort to honor this request.
  Again, I congratulate the parties in the state for what I realize is 
a fragile Agreement and wish to help bring this long standing matter to 
the best conclusion possible both for the economy of the town of Wells 
and the environment of the harbor, the Rachael Carson Wildlife Refuge 
nearby and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, in which the 
harbor lies.
  I want to thank Senator Chafee and his Environment and Public Works 
Committee for their work for successful Senate passage for these bills 
in the last Congress. When passed again by the Senate and by the 
House--and signed into law--the legislation will allow the Maine towns 
involved to get on with much needed harbor economic development and 
dredging.
  I once again thank my colleagues and ask for their continued support 
for passage of these bills, and I especially want to urge the House to 
also move forward on WRDA reauthorization. One project in one district 
in one state should not hold up the passage of this important 
legislation as was the situation last year. This legislation will help 
the economy of small towns in Maine--and many other locations around 
the country--who desperately need harbor reauthorization or dredging.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 109. A bill to improve protection and management of the 
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which 
would modify the boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National 
Recreation Area to protect and preserve the endangered Chattahoochee 
River and provide additional recreation opportunities for the citizens 
of Georgia and our nation. This legislation authorizes the creation of 
a greenway buffer between the river and private development to prevent 
further pollution, provide flood and erosion control, and maintain 
water quality for safe drinking water and for the fish and wildlife 
dependent on the river system. In addition, this legislation promotes 
private-public partnerships by authorizing $25 million in federal funds 
for land acquisition for the recreation area. The $25 million will be 
matched by private funds. The State of Georgia, private foundations, 
corporate entities, private individuals, and others have already given 
or pledged tens of millions of dollars to protect and preserve the 
Chattahoochee River for future generations of Georgians to enjoy.
  I would like to thank Senator Cleland for co-sponsoring this 
important legislation and supporting my efforts to protect one of 
Georgia's most vital natural resources. I believe it is crucial for 
Congress to act quickly on this legislation in order to protect the 
Chattahoochee River from any further development and environmental 
damage. I look forward to working with Senator Cleland and my other 
colleagues in the Senate on this important proposal and urge its speedy 
consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 110. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide medical assistance for breast and cervical cancer-related 
treatment services to certain women screened and found to have breast 
or cervical cancer under a federally-funded screening program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this evening, the President of 
the United States will speak to the 106th Congress and the country in 
his annual State of the Union address. As distracted as we 
appropriately are by the Senate trial of the President, it is 
nevertheless my hope that the Senate, by the conclusion of the 106th 
Congress, will have enacted a strong bipartisan agenda reflecting 
several core principles. First, we must ensure that our public 
education system provides a high-quality, safe learning environment for 
all children; second, we must help working families save for the 
future; and third, we must support policies that increase access to 
health care services and improve the quality of health care in this 
nation.
  With respect to the third principle, I rise today to introduce the 
``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999'', legislation that 
my former colleague, Senator D'Amato from New York, proposed in the 
105th Congress. Last year, this legislation received bipartisan support 
in the Senate with 35 cosponsors, and 113 cosponsors in the House of 
Representatives, demonstrating our commitment to improving the health 
and lives of low-income women in the United States.
  Mr. President, whether we stand here as fathers, husbands, brothers 
or sons, mothers, daughters, sisters or grandchildren, we all know 
someone, a family member or a friend, who has experienced the 
devastating emotional and physical effects of breast or cervical 
cancer. In my state of Oregon, more than 28,000 women are living with 
breast cancer. In 1999, 500 women will die of breast cancer, and 200 
women will die of cervical cancer. In an age of advancing technology 
and improved mammography, this is unacceptable, and unbelievable. We 
can and must do a better job for the women most at risk in this 
country.
  The legislation I am introducing today, gives us an opportunity to 
expand upon an existing program that was enacted by Congress in 1990. 
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act created a 
breast and cervical cancer screening program for low-income and 
uninsured women, and women of racial and ethnic minority populations 
throughout the United States. In its eighth year at the Centers for 
Disease Control (CDC) more than 1.3 million screening tests for breast 
and cervical cancer were provided. The CDC estimates that if such 
services were available to all women at risk, 15-20 percent of all 
deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 could have been 
prevented.
  Recognizing the success of this screening program, the only question 
that remains is the availability of treatment. For a low-income or 
uninsured woman, a diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer means that 
the fight has just begun. Without adequate coverage for treatment, 
women in this program are left to find their own coverage or rely upon 
public hospitals or charity organizations. At Oregon Health Sciences 
University (OHSU), physicians are working overtime to treat patients 
and are facing limited budgets with which to provide services.
  Mr. President, when a woman is diagnosed with cancer, there should be 
no question of whether she will be treated; rather, the answer should 
be ``Absolutely, as soon as possible,'' not ``How do you intend to pay 
for the treatment?''
  The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999 seeks to expand 
upon the CDC screening program--with an emphasis on continuity of 
care--by giving states the option of providing Medicaid coverage for 
breast and cervical cancer treatment services to women who have been 
diagnosed through the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program. 
With this legislation, a woman who is diagnosed through the CDC 
screening program would no longer have to worry about where to find 
treatment; the treatment

[[Page 858]]

 would be available to her upon diagnosis, by familiar physicians, in 
familiar surroundings.
  Mr. President, this is not an issue of costs; it's an issue of 
compassion. It is an opportunity to say ``yes, we're here to help'' to 
the women in our lives who need our help the most. I believe that this 
bill creates a new beginning not only for families of the women who are 
and who will be fighting cancer in their lives, but for us as 
legislators as we face a new millennium. I urge my colleagues to say 
yes by joining me in this opportunity to set a new standard in the way 
we meet the health care needs of women in this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Leahy, and 
        Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 113. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or 
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public 
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the federal judiciary protection act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 
Senators Thurmond, Leahy, and Jeffords, to introduce the Federal 
Judiciary Protection Act of 1999, a bill to provide greater protection 
to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Last year, 
this legislation received strong bipartisan support and passed the 
Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 9, 1997. I intend to work with 
my colleagues and the members of the Judiciary Committee to ensure that 
this bill becomes public law this year.
  Former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of 
all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens 
against violence.'' I believe that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act 
of 1999 gives us that very opportunity to strengthen those laws that 
deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are 
dedicated to protecting our communities and our families.
  Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who 
threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a 
United States official, a United States judge or a Federal law 
enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or 
imprisonment of up to five years, or both. This legislation seeks to 
expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a 
prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 
20 years in prison.
  Importantly, this legislation would also strengthen the penalties for 
individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, 
individuals who knowingly use the United States Postal Service to 
deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine 
of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to five years. Under this 
legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment 
of up to ten years.
  Emphasizing the need for this legislation, are the experiences of 
Oregon's own Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family. They were 
subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters and messages 
from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge 
Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear 
that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become 
reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out 
on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years.
  Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April, 1997, the wife of 
a Circuit Court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had 
been convicted of similar offense in 1994 and 1995. In this instance, 
the judge's wife was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon, and as she 
left the parking lot, realized that she was being followed. In an 
attempt to lose her pursuer, she took alternative routes, speeding 
through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, she cut in front 
of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of 
life, to escape. Even after his third offense, stalking the wife of a 
Circuit Court judge, her pursuer has been sentence to only six months 
of probation and $150 in fines and the court costs.
  Mr. President, these are two examples of vicious acts focused at our 
Federal law enforcement officials and their families. As a member of 
the legislative branch, I believe that it is our responsibility to 
provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the 
life and liberty of every citizen in this nation. I encourage my 
colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Gordon Smith in 
introducing the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 1999. In the last 
Congress, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly identical legislation 
introduced by Senator Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and the Senate but was not acted upon by the House 
of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued 
leadership in protecting our Federal judiciary.
  Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to 
Federal judges, law enforcement officers and their families. 
Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term 
for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or 
interference with a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 3 
years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the maximum prison term for use 
of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily injury against a Federal 
judge or law enforcement officer from 10 years imprisonment to 20 
years; and increase the maximum prison term for threatening murder or 
kidnaping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law 
enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It has the 
support of the Department of Justice, the United States Judicial 
Conference, the United States Sentencing Commission and the United 
States Marshal Service.
  It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs 
this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in 
our Federal judiciary and other law enforcement agencies. But, 
unfortunately, we are seeing more violence and threats of violence 
against officials of our Federal government.
  Recently, for example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was 
firebombed, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This follows the 
horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office building in 
Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer of 1997, a 
Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously wounded by 
Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire law 
enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that day; 
Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New 
Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the 
judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute.
  I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his 
wife and young daughter. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to 
work along the Vermont border. As a federal law enforcement officer, 
Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our 
bill.
  There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking 
the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge or 
law enforcement officer. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned 
with more and more threats of harm to our judges and law enforcement 
officers.
  The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the 
judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the 
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives has been quoted as 
saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not 
behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this 
official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal 
official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal 
judges in the eyes of the public.
  Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate 
and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve 
within it

[[Page 859]]

with the respect that is essential to preserving its public standing.
  We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people 
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence 
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability 
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long 
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary 
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible 
to the gusts of the political winds of the moment.
  We are fortunate to have dedicated women and men throughout the 
Federal Judiciary and law enforcement in this country who do a 
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the 
hard-working public servants that make up the federal government, who 
are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that 
it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal 
Judiciary and other law enforcement officials, to remind everyone that 
these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends. 
They deserve our respect and our protection.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act 
of 1999 and look forward to its swift enactment into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 114. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend certain programs relating to the education of 
individuals as health professionals, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


    physical therapy and occupational therapy education act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Physical and 
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999. This legislation will 
increase educational opportunities for physical therapy and 
occupational therapy practitioners in order to meet the growing demand 
for the valuable services they provide in our communities.
  In its most recent report, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) projected that the demand for services provided by 
physical therapists will increase dramatically over the next decade. 
According to the BLS statistics, the increase in demand for these 
services will create a need for 81,000 additional therapists, an 80% 
increase over 1994 figures.
  The BLS also predicts an increased demand for occupational 
therapists. According to the BLS, by the year 2005, the increase in 
demand will create a need for 39,000 additional occupational 
therapists, a 72% increase over 1994 figures.
  Several factors contribute to the present need for federal support in 
this area. The rapid aging of our nations' population, the demands of 
the AIDs crisis, increasing emphasis on health promotion and disease 
prevention, and the growth of home health care have exceeded our 
ability to educate an adequate number of physical therapy and 
occupational therapy practitioners. In addition, technological advances 
are allowing injured and disabled individuals to survive conditions 
that, in past years, would have proven fatal.
  America's inability to educate an adequate number of physical 
therapists has led to an increased reliance on foreign-educated, non-
immigrant temporary workers (H-1B visa holders). The U.S. Commission on 
Immigration Reform has identified physical therapy and occupational 
therapy as having the highest number of H-1B visa holders in the U.S., 
second only to computer specialists. While the INS does not categorize 
occupational therapy as a separate profession when tracking H-1B visa 
entrants, the National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy 
documents that the percentage of newly certified occupational 
therapists who are foreign graduates has risen from 3% in 1985 to more 
than 20% in 1995.
  The legislation I introduce today would provide necessary assistance 
to physical and occupational therapy programs throughout the country. 
In awarding grants, preference would be given to applicants seeking to 
educate and train practitioners at clinical sites in medically 
underserved communities.
  In addition to the shortage of practitioners, the current shortage of 
physical therapy and occupational therapy faculty impedes the expansion 
of established programs. The critical shortage of doctoral-prepared 
occupational therapists and physical therapists has resulted in an 
almost nonexistent pool of potential faculty. Presently, there are 117 
faculty vacancies among 131 accredited physical therapy programs in the 
U.S. Similiarily, during the 1995-1996 academic year there were 51 
faculty vacancies among 85 accredited professional level occupational 
therapy programs. The legislation I introduce today would assist in the 
development of a pool of qualified faculty by giving preference to 
applicants seeking to develop and expand post professional programs for 
the advanced training of physical and occupational therapists.
  The investment we make through passage of the Physical Therapy and 
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999 will help reduce America's 
dependence on foreign labor and create highly-skilled, high-wage 
employment opportunities for American citizens. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 114

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Physical Therapy and 
     Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended by the Health Professions Education 
     Partnerships Act of 1998, is amended by inserting after 
     section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 769A. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, programs of physical therapy and 
     occupational therapy for the purpose of planning and 
     implementing projects to recruit and retain faculty and 
     students, develop curriculum, support the distribution of 
     physical therapy and occupational therapy practitioners in 
     underserved areas, or support the continuing development of 
     these professions.
       ``(b) Preference in Making Grants.--In making grants under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     qualified applicants that seek to educate physical therapists 
     or occupational therapists in rural or urban medically 
     underserved communities, or to expand post-professional 
     programs for the advanced education of physical therapy or 
     occupational therapy practitioners.
       ``(c) Peer Review.--Each peer review group under section 
     798(a) that is reviewing proposals for grants or contracts 
     under subsection (a) shall include not fewer than 2 physical 
     therapists or occupational therapists.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report 
     that--
       ``(A) summarizes the applications submitted to the 
     Secretary for grants or contracts under subsection (a);
       ``(B) specifies the identity of entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts; and
       ``(C) evaluates the effectiveness of the program based upon 
     the objectives established by the entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts.
       ``(2) Date certain for submission.--Not later than February 
     1, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the report prepared under 
     paragraph (1) to the Committee on Commerce and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2003.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 115. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissection for 
the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary 
consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.

[[Page 860]]




              Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, I rise today to introduce the Women's 
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999. We supported this bill in the 
105th Congress when it was championed by my friend, the Senator from 
New York, Mr. D'Amato, and we are reaffirming our support for this 
important issue by reintroducing this bill today. Last year we did make 
some progress on this bill as one piece--requiring insurance companies 
to cover reconstructive surgery was included in the final Omnibus 
spending bill enacted into law last October.
  This bill is about doing what's best for women facing the crisis of a 
cancer diagnosis and a potential mastectomy. Because right now some 
women are being denied the best health care available. That is simply 
not acceptable in a country of such vast medical resources.
  This year, millions of Americans will face the possibility of a 
cancer diagnosis, and 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast 
cancer. Our bill provides women with breast cancer and all Americans 
facing a cancer diagnosis with some basic protections.
  First, it ensures that doctors are not pressured by health plans to 
release mastectomy patients before it is medically appropriate. 
Currently, some insurers have guidelines recommending that mastectomies 
be performed on an outpatient basis. A mastectomy is a very complicated 
surgical procedure and complications can arise as a result. Sending a 
woman home immediately after the surgery is not always the right thing 
to do. They may not have the information they need nor, more 
importantly, the care. We want to make sure--and this bill will--that 
the decisions are made in the context of the medical well being of the 
patient as opposed to being made by an insurance company bureaucrat.
  This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients. The 
physical scars left by a mastectomy can be complicated and difficult to 
care for, and often require supervision. Women prematurely released may 
not have the information they need, and some dangerous complications 
can arise hours after the operation. And all of this is happening in 
context of the intense emotional trauma that comes with losing part or 
all of a breast.
  Finally, all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis 
must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate medical care. 
To do that, they need access to all the information available. Our bill 
requires insurance companies to pay full coverage for secondary 
consultations with a specialist whenever any cancer has been diagnosed 
or a treatment recommended. This will reduce senseless deaths resulting 
from false diagnoses and empower individuals to seek the most 
appropriate available treatment.
  Women with breast cancer and all Americans facing a cancer diagnosis 
cannot wait any longer. I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill in order to provide the protections granted under 
this bill now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 116. A bill to establish a training voucher system, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 working american training voucher act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will address a serious need of America's workers: the need to receive 
training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st 
Century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training 
Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million 
working men and women who typically have little or no access to 
employer-provided training.
  Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those 
whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and 
tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an 
impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do 
what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those 
whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it 
is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose 
challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose 
sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual 
and their family.
  It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In 
the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the 
job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned 
that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents 
less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel 
more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they 
possess today are even marketable if they are ``down-sized'' or 
otherwise put out of work.
  Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties oftentimes do 
not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize 
or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man 
or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her 
future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a 
time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not 
only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous.
  We should not wait until a worker has been laid-off from their job, 
or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to 
help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that 
our nation's workforce is confident of their future and feels prepared 
to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this 
help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way 
to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep 
those who are already employed on-the-job!
  Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in 
creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses, 
the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the 
regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on 
our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for 
the individual, many of these policies seem too ``macro'' to have an 
impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may 
not even recognize the direct impact these broader policies have on 
their job from day to day.
  There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how 
an individual feels about the future: the degree to which he or she 
knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or 
other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, 
it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low 
as economists consider the ``natural rate of unemployment'' or if the 
newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The 
simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their 
skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete 
sense of security on the job from one day to the next.
  And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about. 
The ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' addresses the needs of 
the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but 
doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of 
tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned 
that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon.
  Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are 
entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes these 
technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs have 
gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune from 
change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the face 
of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and design. 
Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a high-tech 
flair thanks to new technologies.
  For an individual who understands these technologies or receives 
training

[[Page 861]]

in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities that 
improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance that 
their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand these 
technologies or do not receive training in their use, these 
technologies are nothing more than a threat and a cause for anxiety.
  Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the 
workplace continues to grow because of these changing technologies, the 
United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors 
in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of 
Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international 
standards, most American workers are not well trained.''
  While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to 
training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A 
study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted 
this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate--
approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number 
of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4 
percent! While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any 
business, I believe we can and should seek to improve the availability 
of training for our nation's workers--and especially for those who need 
it most but are least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who 
the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed to reach.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would 
provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses 
with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small 
businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the 
least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The 
same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 
summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite 
succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal 
training.''
  A 1997 report--completed by Professor Craig Olson at the University 
of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task 
Force during the 105th Congress--looked at the difference between the 
likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of 
educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she 
chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a 
bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving 
training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma 
had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped out of high school 
fared even worse: their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent.
  When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or 
service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of 
receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50 
percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers 
received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for 
many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and 
occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive 
training.
  One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often 
provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are 
quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a 
training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet, 
it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the 
business both money and time away from work.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed 
to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These 
vouchers--valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to 
employees at small businesses through the existing job training system 
that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership 
Act (JTPA). As my colleagues in the Senate know, state and local 
governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility 
for the development, management, and administration of job training 
programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary 
to conduct this voucher program.
  The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the 
employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be 
purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be 
targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business--
money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills 
that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job. 
Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively 
engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as 
employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help 
the business.
  Last year, JTPA programs were re-crafted and consolidated as part of 
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998--a law that greatly improved 
the delivery of federal job training monies. Specifically, up until the 
passage of the WIA, there was virtually no federal money for workers 
that are already employed. But with WIA's enactment, we are beginning 
to place some much needed attention on the needs of incumbent workers, 
and the ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' will vastly expand 
access to training for those who need it most.
  Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our workforce for the 
next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills 
that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they 
gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not 
only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of 
the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of 
the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a 
business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to 
survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist 
in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run.
  Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals 
are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event 
their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless 
of how favorable the tax code is made or how many burdensome 
regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual 
that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker 
with access to training that will keep his or her skills up-to-date and 
marketable no matter what the future holds.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would be a 
tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core 
issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically 
have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills 
needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the 
future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and 
will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work 
to provide help.
  The Federal government often promises the American people many 
things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't 
know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's 
take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who 
have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new 
skills. Let's pass the ``Working American Training Voucher Act.''
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Women's 
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999 with Senator Olympia Snowe.
  This bill has four provisions:
  For breast cancer--
  1. It requires insurance plans to cover hospital stays as determined 
by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be 
medically appropriate. Our bill does not prescribe a fixed number of 
days or set a minimum. It leaves the length of hospital stay up to the 
treating physician.
  2. It requires insurance plans to provide notice to plan subscribers 
of these requirements.
  For all cancers--
  3. It prohibits insurance plans from linking financial or other 
incentives to a physician's provisions of care.

[[Page 862]]

  4. It requires plans to cover second opinions by specialists to 
confirm or refute a diagnosis. If the attending physician certifies 
that there is no appropriate specialist practicing under the insurance 
plan, the plan must ensure that coverage is provided outside the plan 
for a second opinion by a qualified specialist selected by the 
attending physician at no additional cost to the patient beyond that 
which the patient would have paid if the specialist were participating 
in the plan.


                          Need for Legislation

  The movement from inpatient to outpatient mastectomies and reduced 
hospital stays for mastectomies in recent years has been documented. A 
June 3, 1998 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute 
found that from 1986 to 1995 ``the proportion of mastectomies performed 
on an outpatient basis increased from virtually 0% to 10.8%,'' said 
these researchers. This report also says that the data ``clearly 
suggested a shorter average length of stay and a higher likelihood of a 
short stay for women covered by HMOs'' and that ``while short stays 
appear to be more prevalent among HMO enrollees, they are not limited 
exclusively to women with HMO coverage.''
  Another study, by the medical research firm HCIA of Baltimore, 
Maryland, found that in 1995, 7.6 percent of the 110,000 breast 
removals in the country were done on an outpatient basis, up from 1.6 
percent in 1991.
  Another study found that the average length of stay for women who 
have had a mastectomy is 4.34 days nationally, but in California, it is 
2.98 days, the shortest in the country. (New York has the longest 
mastectomy length of stay at 5.78 days.) This study, published in the 
winter 1997-1998 issue of Inquiry, says:

       California had the highest proportion of mastectomy 
     patients discharged after only one day or within two days . . 
     . Nearly 12% of mastectomy patients in California were 
     discharged with a length of stay equal to one day; the next 
     highest proportion was 4.8% in Massachusetts; the percentages 
     in the other three states ranged from 1.1% to 2.2%.

  A July 7, 1997 study by the Connecticut Office of Health Care Access 
found the average hospital length of stay for breast cancer patients 
undergoing mastectomies decreased from three days in 1991 and 1993 to 
two days in 1994 and 1995. This study said, ``The percentage of 
mastectomy patients discharged after one-day stays grew about 700 
percent from 1991 to 1996.''
  The Wall Street Journal on November 6, 1996, reported that ``some 
health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering 
that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing 
number of HMOs, surgeons must document `medical necessity' to justify 
even a one-night hospital admission.''
  And so the studies confirm that (1) hospital lengths of stay for 
mastectomies are decreasing and (2) more mastectomies are being done on 
an outpatient basis.


                       Incidence of Breast Cancer

  In 1998, over 180,000 people (one in every 8 American women) were 
diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,000 women died from breast 
cancer. Only lung cancer causes more cancer deaths in American women. 
There are 2.6 million American women living with breast cancer today.
  In my state, in 1998, approximately 17,600 women were diagnosed with 
breast cancer and 4,300 died, according to the American Cancer Society. 
Officials at the Northern California Cancer Center say that breast 
cancer incidence rates in Los Angeles and San Francisco are 
significantly higher than national rates.


              the stress of mastectomy; the need for care

  After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery, 
with drainage tubes and with psychological loss--the trauma of an 
amputation. These patients need medical care from trained 
professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at 
home. A woman fighting for her life and her dignity should not also be 
saddled with a battle with her health insurance plan.
  Dr. Christine Miaskowski at the University of California, San 
Francisco, estimates that about 20 percent of women who have breast 
cancer surgery have chronic pain of long duration. A University of 
California, San Diego, study suggests that the rate may be double that, 
reports the May 20, 1998 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
  Patients who have mastectomies in outpatient settings have higher 
rates of rehospitalization than women with a one-day hospital stay, 
according to the study reported in the Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute.
  As the National Breast Cancer Coalition wrote me on March 12, 1998: 
``The NBCC applauds this effort and believes this compromise will put 
an end to the dangerous health insurance practices that allow cost and 
not medical evidence to determine when a woman leaves a hospital after 
cancer surgery.''


                     some accomplishments last year

  In the last Congress, Senators D'Amato, Snowe and I introduced a 
similar bill, S. 249, which also included a requirement that plans 
cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. Fortunately, 
Congress passed and the President signed that part of our bill, into 
law, the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 1999, now P.L. 105-277.
  The mastectomy hospital length-of-stay and the other provisions did 
not become law, despite many efforts:
  At our request, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on S. 249 
on November 5, 1997.
  We attempted to get this considered by the Senate, three times in 
1998:
  On March 16, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2646, the Parent and 
Student Savings Account PLUS Act.
  On May 6, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2676, the IRS 
restructuring bill.
  On May 12, we tried to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate, but 
were blocked.
  In addition, Senator D'Amato offered it as an amendment in the 
Finance Committee twice.


                          two california cases

  Two California women have shared their real-life experiences with me:
  Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, California, wrote me that she had a 
modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was 
released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not 
help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under 
these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to 
receive professional help and strong pain relief.''
  Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and 
lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released 
from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given 
instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent 
home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy 
as an outpatient procedure.''
  These are but two examples of what I believe is happening around the 
county--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment 
and arbitrarily reducing care without a medical basis.
  Premature discharges for mastectomy, with insurance plans strong-
arming physicians to send women home, are one glaring example of the 
rising tide of abuses faced by patients and physicians who have to 
``battle'' with their HMOs to get coverage of the care that physicians 
believe is medically necessary.


                        No Financial Incentives

  For all cancers, our bill also prohibits insurance plans from 
including financial or other incentives to influence the care a doctor 
provides, similar to a law passed by the California legislature last 
year. Many physicians have complained that insurance plans include 
financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient visits or for 
not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans financial 
incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent is to 
restore medical decision-making to health care.
  For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives 
under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty 
care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year-

[[Page 863]]

old California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO 
incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that 
could have saved her life.


                            Second Opinions

  Finally, our bill requires plans to cover second opinions by 
specialists for all cancers when a patient requests them. And if the 
attending physician certifies that there is no appropriate specialist 
practicing under the plan, the plan must cover a second opinion outside 
the plan by a qualified specialist selected by the attending physician, 
at no additional cost to the patient beyond that which the patient 
would have paid if the specialists were participating in the plan.
  The alarm of learning one has cancer is profound. It affects the 
individual and the whole family deeply. People need the best medical 
judgment they can get, to make some of the most important decisions of 
their lives. I believe plans should cover a second opinion, so that 
patients can get the best care possible and can try to find some peace 
of mind that they are getting competent, complete medical advice.


                               Conclusion

  This bill would restore professional medical decision making to 
medical doctors, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not 
take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but 
unfortunately that is where we are today. As the National Breast Cancer 
Coalition wrote, ``. . . until guaranteed access to quality health care 
coverage and service is available for all women and their families, 
there are some very serious patient concerns that must be met. Without 
meaningful health care reform, market forces propel the changes in the 
health care system and women are at risk of being forced to pay the 
price by having inappropriate limits placed on their access to quality 
health care.''
  This is an important protection for millions of Americans who face 
the fear, the reality and the costs of cancer every day. Seven states 
have a law allowing a physician to determine the length of stay 
following a mastectomy. Seven states have a required 48-hour minimum 
stay requirement.
  It is long past time for this Congress to send a strong message to 
insurance companies. Medical decisions must be made by medical 
professionals, not anonymous insurance clerks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 117. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan coverage 
of services while participating in approved clinical studies; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 118. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, 
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased 
involvement of advocates in decision making at the National Cancer 
Institute; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       BREAST CANCER LEGISLATION

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills which 
build on progress made in the 105th Congress in the difficult and 
challenging fight against breast cancer.
  Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she 
stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must make our voices heard, because 
it is our lives.'' Indeed, breast cancer continues to claim the lives 
of our mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. With about 1 in 8 women 
at risk for developing breast cancer, there is scarcely a family in 
America unaffected by the disease.
  By the end of this year alone, over 178,000 women will have been 
diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 43,500 will have died. And with each 
life stolen, our nation is weakened immeasurably.
  We took an important step forward in the last Congress to combat this 
deadly foe. In the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act, 
Congress included language based on a bill I introduced with the 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to create a ``one-stop 
shopping information service'' for individuals with life-threatening 
diseases looking to obtain information about privately and publicly 
funded clinical trials. This service provides information describing 
the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria and the location. It 
gives individuals, their families and physicians an 800 number to call 
to obtain the latest information about these trials--trials that could 
save a loved ones life and trials that could help put us a step closer 
to our ultimate goal--finding a cure.
  Much remains to be done before we conquer breast cancer, so today I 
am reintroducing a bill, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical 
Studies Act of 1999, to prohibit insurance companies from denying 
coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical 
trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This 
bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against 
enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials.
  This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many 
patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving 
investigational treatments but currently do not have access to them 
because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second, 
without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to 
conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of 
patients who seek to participate in clinical trials.
  The second bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the 
National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) research decision-making. The 
Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow 
the Department of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer 
advocates in breast cancer research decision-making.
  The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped 
foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and 
research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality 
assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to 
ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and 
wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as 
the scientific community.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills 
which will help those suffering from breast cancer and their families 
as well as our researchers who are seeking the cure for this 
devastating disease.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 119. A bill to establish a Northern Border States-Canada Trade 
Council, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Finance.


                 the northern border states council act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States-
Canada trade.
  The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our 
Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long 
overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert 
State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic 
and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more 
effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth 
of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not only in my 
State of Maine, but also in the other eleven northern border States as 
well, on this critical policy issue.
  Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce 
and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for 
our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the facts is that too 
often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of 
the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest 
demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The 
Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with 
a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. 
The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. 
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and 
State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, and 
problems.

[[Page 864]]

  Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. Canada is 
by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is 
the largest source of U.S. imports. In 1997, for instance, Canada 
imported over $151.7 million worth of U.S. goods. With an economy one-
tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on 
maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada 
accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United 
States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the 
market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports.
  The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade 
relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only 
for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the 
trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen 
this past year with actual farmer border blockades in some border 
states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies. Over 
the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major 
trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 
1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993. 
Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused 
trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and 
Ottawa, most recently for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat 
imports, animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology. I might 
add at recent negotiations, there was still no movement towards 
solutions for the potato industry, but I have been promised by the USDA 
that it is now the top priority for discussion.
  Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved 
agricultural commodities such as Durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy 
products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have 
impacted more than just the 12 northern border States.
  Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and 
traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. These are literally 
thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-
border traffic and trade for their livelihood.
  My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over 
that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry, and I 
know that the upper mid-west and the western states have problems as 
well. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from 
United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, 
such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk 
shipments from the United States.
  This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato 
imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during an 
International Trade Commission investigations hearing on April 30, 
1997, where I testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC 
followed up with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict 
imports to bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or 
repacking, and that the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk 
shipment restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also 
artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through 
domestic subsidies for its potato growers.
  Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of 
New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this 
legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began 
stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 
11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased 
in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the 
Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. 
The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted 
against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the 
other provinces bordering New Brunswick.
  After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do 
something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then 
Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of 
NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the 
NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, 
the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement 
process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment I offered 
to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade 
Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took 
three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not 
crafted by the USTR.
  Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of 
Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials 
that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted 
their attention and action. We had no way of knowing, whether problems 
similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States-
Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body 
like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection 
of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the 
issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to 
how to deal with it.
  The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming, 
with no solution on the horizon from the federal entities in charge, as 
the industry in Maine and other states in the U.S. continues to strive 
to stay competitive despite the trade barriers thrown up against their 
potatoes.
  In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes 
and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are 
most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The 
Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in 
monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help insure that national 
trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be 
developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities 
and burdens present to the northern border states.
  The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a 
regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature 
and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend 
how to resolve them.
  The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not 
be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such 
matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and 
retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and 
subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products 
commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws 
and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act 
as nontariff barriers to trade.
  As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all 
Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United 
States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the 
dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council 
reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade 
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from 
any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State.
  If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade 
dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best 
of its ability, if the source of the dispute in the Canadian Federal 
Government or a Canadian Provencal government.
  The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade 
bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by 
the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern 
border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members 
will be unpaid, and serve as 2-year term.
  The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will 
not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure 
that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in 
Washington by our

[[Page 865]]

Federal trade officials. For too long their voices have been ignored, 
and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic 
consequences at various times because of it. This legislation will 
bring our States into their rightful position as full partners for 
issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's 
largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 120. A bill to amend title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to clarify 
the definition of domestic industry and to include certain agricultural 
products for purposes of providing relief from injury caused by import 
competition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               the agricultural trade reform act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give 
agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and 
badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports 
from foreign countries.
  The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries 
to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of 
imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S. 
industries to actually secure action under the Act to remedy this kind 
of injury.
  The ineffectiveness of the Act results from some of the specific 
language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the 
International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief 
from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S. 
industry, or a segment of an industry located in a ``major geographic 
area'' of the U.S. whose production constitutes a ``substantial 
portion'' of the total domestic injury. This language has been 
interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S. 
industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify 
for any relief.
  Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely 
injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the 
businesses who comprise this portion of the industry do not have much 
recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ 
thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for 
the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large 
segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or 
have other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of 
sharp and damaging import surges.
  In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for 
assistance, the time frames under the Trade Act for expedited, or 
provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond 
in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing 
imports. At a minimum, three months must elapse before any relief can 
be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may 
suffer during that time. And three months is an absolute minimum. In 
reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited 
relief.
  Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems 
in U.S. trade law that I have described remain acute. Due to their 
perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried 
until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so 
fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural 
producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and 
sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short-
term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an 
import surge.
  Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve 
specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the 
agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of 
the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition 
for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not 
necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars 
researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC.
  The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower 
America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies 
for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user 
friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets 
criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do 
not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more 
useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import 
surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when 
determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports. 
This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located 
in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a 
significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also 
be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the 
domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether 
substantial imports are entering the area.
  Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC 
review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be 
granted, my bill would permit the United States Trade Representative or 
the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review.
  Because the time frames in the present law for considering and 
providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports 
can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued, 
this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief 
determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in 
certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored 
by the USTR for at least 90 days.
  And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products 
eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product, 
including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable 
agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for 
expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list 
unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen 
french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the 
Trade Act.
  For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat 
sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and 
stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural 
producers in the competitive arena, and will help provide effective 
remedies for agricultural producers, and provide effective deterrents 
to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope 
other senators with a interest in fair play for our domestic 
agricultural producers will join me I cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 121. A bill to amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to 
prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise 
from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, 
sex, age, or disability, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEDURES PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil 
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999. The 106th Congress will mark 
the fourth successive Congress in which I have introduced this 
legislation. Very simply Mr. President, this legislation addresses the 
rapidly growing and very troubling practice of employers conditioning 
employment or professional advancement upon their employees' 
willingness to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to 
arbitration, rather than pursuing them in the courts. In other words, 
employees raising claims of harassment or discrimination by their 
employers must submit the adjudication of those claims to arbitration, 
denying themselves any other remedies may exist under the laws of this 
Nation.
  The right to seek redress in a court of law--the right to a jury 
trial--is one of the most basic rights accorded to employees in this 
nation. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress expressly

[[Page 866]]

created this right to a jury trial for employees when it voted 
overwhelmingly to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  The intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and other civil rights and 
labor laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
is being circumvented by companies that require all employees to submit 
to mandatory, binding arbitration. In other words, the company is 
compelling an agreement to arbitration without regard to basic civil 
rights of American workers or their right to secure final resolution of 
such disputes in a court of law under the rules of fairness and due 
process.
  How then does the practice of mandatory, binding arbitration comport 
with the purpose and spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual 
harassment laws? The answer is simply that it does not.
  To address the growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil 
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999 amends seven civil rights 
statutes to guarantee that a federal civil rights or sexual harassment 
plaintiff can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts rather than 
be forced into mandatory, binding arbitration. Specifically, this 
legislation affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1965, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, 
the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal 
Arbitration Act (FAA). In the context of the Federal Arbitration Act, 
the protections of this legislation are extended to claims of unlawful 
discrimination arising under State or local law and other Federal laws 
that prohibit job discrimination.
  Mr. President, this bill is not anti-arbitration, anti-mediation, or 
anti-alternative dispute resolution. I have long been and will remain a 
strong supporter of ``voluntary forms'' of alternative methods of 
dispute resolution that allow the parties to choose not to proceed to 
litigation. Rather, this bill targets only mandatory binding 
arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Increasingly, working men 
and women are faced with the choice of accepting a mandatory 
arbitration clause in their employment agreement or no employment at 
all. Despite the appearance of a freely negotiated contract, the 
reality often amounts to a non-negotiable requirement that prospective 
employees relinquish their rights to redress in a court of law. 
Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all current and 
prospective employees in effect, ``If you want to work for us, you will 
have to check your rights at the door.'' These requirements have been 
referred to as ``front door'' contracts; that is, they require an 
employee to surrender certain rights in order to ``get in the front 
door.'' As a nation which values work and deplores discrimination, we 
should not allow this practice to continue.
  As I noted Mr. President, the 106th Congress marks the fourth 
successive Congress in which I have introduced this important 
legislation. In the past year, we have made some advances addressing 
the unfair use of mandatory binding arbitration clauses. Due to the 
attention focused on this issue through this legislation, a hearing in 
the Banking Committee last session, and a series of articles and 
editorials in prominent periodicals, the National Association of 
Securities Dealers (NASD) agreed to remove the mandatory binding 
arbitration clause from its Form U-4, which all prospective securities 
dealers sign as a condition of employment. The NASD's decision to 
remove the binding arbitration clause, however, does not prohibit its 
constituent organizations from including a mandatory, binding 
arbitration clause in their own employment agreements, even if it is 
not mandated by the industry as a whole.
  These changes in the securities industry are a positive development, 
but the trend toward the use of mandatory, binding arbitration clauses 
in many industries continues. This bill restores the ability of working 
men and women to pursue their rights in a venue that they choose and 
therefore restores and reinvigorates the spirit of our nation's civil 
rights and sexual harassment laws in the context of these employment 
contracts. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 121

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Procedures 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 
                   1964.

       Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 719. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this title, such powers and 
     procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT 
                   OF 1967.

       The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 
     621 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 16 and 17 as sections 17 and 
     18, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 15 the following new section 
     16:

     ``SEC. 16. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this Act, such powers and 
     procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

       Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794a) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under section 501, such powers 
     and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures 
     applicable to such right or such claim unless after such 
     right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters 
     into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim 
     through arbitration or another procedure.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 
                   1990.

       Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12117) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim based on a violation described in 
     subsection (a), such powers and procedures shall be the 
     exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or 
     such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the 
     claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such 
     right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1977 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.

       Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this section) that would 
     otherwise modify any of the powers and procedures expressly 
     applicable to a right or claim concerning making and 
     enforcing a contract of employment under this section, such 
     powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and 
     procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless 
     after such right or such claim arises the claimant 
     voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or 
     resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO THE EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FAIR 
                   LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

       Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended by

[[Page 867]]

     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal 
     law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise 
     modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable 
     to a right or claim arising under this subsection, such 
     powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and 
     procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless 
     after such right or such claim arises the claimant 
     voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or 
     resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 
                   1993.

       Title IV of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 405 as section 406; and
       (2) by inserting after section 404 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 405. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDIES.

       ``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law 
     that expressly refers to this Act or a provision of 
     subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code) 
     that would modify any of the powers and procedures expressly 
     applicable to a right or claim arising under this Act or 
     under such subchapter such powers and procedures shall be the 
     exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or 
     such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the 
     claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such 
     right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another 
     procedure.''.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 14 of title 9, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``This''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) This chapter shall not apply with respect to a claim 
     of unlawful discrimination in employment if such claim arises 
     from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, 
     national origin, age, or disability.''.

     SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     claims arising not later than the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 122. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure 
equitable treatment of members of the National Guard and the other 
reserve components of the United States with regard to eligibility to 
receive special duty assignment pay, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY EQUITY ACT OF 
                                  1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that restores a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and 
Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are 
the cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure 
and deserve more than a pat on the back.
  Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard 
and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent 
and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by 
DOD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an 
increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National 
Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out 
their duties.
  National Guard and Reserve members are becoming increasingly relied 
upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to 
compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the 
Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness.
  Mr. President, my bill would correct special duty assignment pay 
inequities between the Reserve components and the active duty. These 
inequities should be corrected to take into account the National Guard 
and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on 
the front lines. Given the increased use of the Reserve components and 
DOD's increased reliance on them, Reservists deserve fair pay. My bill 
states that a Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing 
special duty be paid special duty assignment pay.
  Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite 
the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty 
assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific 
soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special 
training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory 
performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the 
ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated 
and specialized soldiers.
  The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional 
monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who 
are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an 
unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments 
include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention 
non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the 
Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty 
assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends).
  Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut 
by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of 
personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this 
program. These soldiers deserve better.
  Mr. President, this bill is paid for by terminating the ineffective, 
unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic known as Project ELF, or the 
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, which costs approximately 
$12 million per year.
  Mr. President, the differences in pay and benefits are particularly 
disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their 
civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for 
active duty.
  As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose 
an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an 
increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion 
over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending 
hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations in supporting 
this nation's citizen-soldiers. The National Guard and Reserve deserve 
pay and benefit equity and that means paying them what they're worth.
  Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the 
operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness 
levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to 
fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect 
effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, 
full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more 
importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers.
  Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on 
the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while 
simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of 
millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect 
given the Guard and Reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a 
result of new missions, increased deployments, and training 
requirements.
  Earlier this month, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of 
defense for reserve affairs, presented DOD's position with regard to 
the department's working relationship with the National Guard and 
Reserve. He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be 
called upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of 
soldiers on active duty. This has clearly been DOD's policy for the 
past few years, but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that 
the reserve units can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but 
primary components of national defense.
  Mr. President, in the past, DOD viewed the Armed Forces as a two-
pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong, 
reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the 
downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part 
of the ``total force'' of the military.
  The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to 
active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace-
keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams 
trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed

[[Page 868]]

within our own borders. According to many military experts, this 
represents a more salient threat to the United States than the threat 
of a ballistic missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so 
much time addressing.
  As I'm sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard 
represents a full 34 percent of total army forces, including 55 percent 
of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25 
percent of combat service support, yet receives just 9.5 percent of 
Army funds.
  Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that we have failed to 
invest fully in the National Guard. It's no surprise because it's the 
best bargain in the Defense Department. DOD has never been known as a 
frugal department. From $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to $2 billion 
bombers that don't work and the department doesn't seem to want to use, 
the Department of Defense has a storied history of wasting our tax 
dollars. Here is an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something 
that works, that is worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides 
of the aisle.
  The National Guard fits the bill. According to a National Guard 
study, the average cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is 
$73,000 per year, while it costs $17,000 per year to train and equip a 
National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining Army National Guard 
units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining Active Army units. 
It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining about lack of funding 
and begin using their money more wisely and efficiently.
  Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these 
soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them 
home upon their return, and I have been struck by the courage and 
professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists have been vital 
on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, the State Guard 
provides vital support during state emergencies, including floods, ice 
storms, and train derailments.
  Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National 
Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to adequately 
compensate them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our 
citizen-soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and 
their paychecks should reflect their contribution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 122

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Guard and Reserve Special 
     Duty Assignment Pay Equity Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ENTITLEMENT OF RESERVES NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE 
                   SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY.

       (a) Authority.--Section 307(a) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after ``is entitled to basic 
     pay'' in the first sentence the following: ``, or is entitled 
     to compensation under section 206 of this title in the case 
     of a member of a reserve component not on active duty,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. OFFSET OF COST BY TERMINATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE 
                   EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OF 
                   THE NAVY.

       (a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
     Communication System of the Navy.
       (b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation 
     of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
       (c) Excess Savings To Be Credited to Deficit Reduction.--To 
     the extent, if any, that the amount of expenditures forgone 
     for a fiscal year for the operation of the Extremely Low 
     Frequency Communication System by reason of this section 
     exceeds the increased cost of paying special duty assignment 
     pay in that fiscal year as a result of the amendment made by 
     section 2, the excess amount shall be credited to budget 
     deficit reduction for that fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 123. A bill to phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                       tennessee valley authority

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
similar to bills I offered in the two previous Congresses, to terminate 
funding for the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA). In FY 99, after terminating funding for these programs in the FY 
99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the Congress revived funding 
for these programs in the Omnibus Appropriations measure.
  The TVA was created in 1933 as a government-owned corporation for the 
unified development of a river basin comprised of parts of seven 
states. Those activities included the construction of an extensive 
power system, for which the region is now famous, and regional 
development or ``non-power'' programs. TVA's responsibilities in the 
non-power programs include maintaining its system of dams, reservoirs 
and navigation facilities, and managing TVA-held lands. In addition, 
TVA provides recreational programs, makes economic development grants 
to communities, promotes public use of its land and water resources, 
and operates an Environmental Research Center. Only the TVA power 
programs are intended to be self-supporting, by relying on TVA utility 
customers to foot the bill. The cost of these ``non-power'' programs, 
on the other hand, is covered by appropriated taxpayer funds.
  This legislation terminates funding for all appropriated programs of 
the TVA after FY 2000. While I understand the role that TVA has played 
in our history, I also know that we face tremendous federal budget 
pressure to reduce spending in many areas. I believe that TVA's 
discretionary funds should be on the table, and that Congress should 
act, in accordance with this legislation, to put the TVA appropriated 
programs on a glide path toward dependence on sources of funds other 
than appropriated funds. This legislation is a reasonable phased-in 
approach to achieve this objective, and explicitly codifies both prior 
recommendations made by the Administration and the TVA Chairman.
  We should terminate TVA's appropriated programs because there are 
lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities 
that should be paid for by non-federal interests. When I ran for the 
Senate in 1992, I developed an 82+ point plan to eliminate the federal 
deficit and have continued to work on the implementation of that plan 
since that time. That plan includes a number of elements in the natural 
resource area, including the termination of TVA's appropriations-funded 
programs.
  In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship 
Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives 
federal funds. Stewardship activities receive the largest share of 
TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and 
maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA 
before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when 
TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with 
appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected 
from electricity ratepayers.
  This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the 
taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA 
were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed 
routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs 
associated with that activity.
  Despite CBO's charges that a portion of the Stewardship funds may be 
subsidizing the power program, I have heard from a number of my 
constituents who are concerned that some of the TVA's non-power 
activities are critical federal functions. In order to be certain that 
Congress would be acting properly to terminate certain functions while 
preserving others under TVA or transferring them to other federal 
agencies, this bill directs OMB to

[[Page 869]]

study TVA's non-power programs. That study, which must be completed by 
June 1, 1999, requires OMB to evaluate TVA's non-power programs, 
describe which of those are necessary federal functions, and recommend 
whether those which are federal functions should be performed by TVA or 
by another agency. That way, Mr. President, Congress will be fully 
informed before making a final decision to terminate these funds.
  Again, while I understand the important role that TVA played in the 
development of the Tennessee Valley, many other areas of the country 
have become more creative in federal and state financing arrangements 
to address regional concerns. Specifically, in those areas where there 
may be excesses within TVA, I believe we can do better to curb 
subsidies and eliminate the burden on taxpayers without completely 
eliminating the TVA, as some in the other body have suggested.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 123

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Discontinuance of Appropriations.--Section 27 of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831z), is 
     amended by inserting ``for fiscal years through fiscal year 
     2000'' before the period.
       (b) Plan.--Not later than June 1, 1999, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall develop and submit a 
     plan to Congress that--
       (1) reviews the non-power activities conducted by the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority using appropriated funds; and
       (2) determines whether the non-power activities performed 
     by the Tennessee Valley Authority can be adequately performed 
     by other federal agencies, and if so, describes the resources 
     needed by other agencies to perform such activities; and
       (3) describes on-going federal interest in the continuation 
     of the non-power activities currently performed by the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority; and
       (4) recommends any legislation that may be appropriate to 
     carry out the objectives of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 124. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I 
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is 
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                  ABOLISHING THE ANTI-EAU CLAIRE RULE

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which 
will serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by 
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, 
created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid 
to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty 
years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper 
Midwest by awarding a high price to dairy farmers in proportion to the 
distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
  This legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most 
harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it.
  Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases at 
a rate of 21 cents per hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even 
though most milk marketing orders do not receive any milk from 
Wisconsin. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are $2.98 higher in Florida 
than in Wisconsin and over $1.00 higher in Texas. This method of 
pricing fluid milk is not only arbitrary, but also out of date and out 
of sync with the market conditions of 1999. It is time for this method 
of pricing--known as single-basing-point pricing--to come to an end.
  The bill I introduce today will prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture 
from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the 
basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are 
actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The 
Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that 
supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the 
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in 
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing 
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in 
local and national markets.
  This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on 
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the 
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by 
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition 
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
  This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the 
current system has penalized them for many years. By providing 
disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and 
creating artificial economic incentives for milk production, Wisconsin 
producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. 
Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk in some parts of 
the country, the prices have led to excess production.
  The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to 
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an 
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those 
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed 
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
  The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact 
that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states 
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually 
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk 
prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets 
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our 
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further 
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
  The market distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in 
federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate 
that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years. 
Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would 
fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer 
government purchases of surplus milk. The regions which would gain and 
lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the 
current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market 
undisturbed by Federal Orders would actually increase in the Upper 
Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.
  The data clearly show that Upper Midwest producers are hurt by 
distortions built into a single-basing-point system that prevent them 
from competing effectively in a national market.
  While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing 
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was 
formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the 
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to 
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did 
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
  Mr. President, that is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is 
neither the lowest cost production area nor a primary source of reserve 
supplies of milk. In many of the markets with higher fluid milk 
differentials, milk is produced efficiently, and in some cases, at 
lower cost than the Upper Midwest. Unfortunately, the prices didn't 
adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the 
dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, 
specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.
  Fluid milk prices should have been lowered to reflect that trend. 
Instead, in 1985, the prices were increased for markets distant from 
Eau Claire.

[[Page 870]]

USDA has refused to use the administrative authority provided by 
Congress to make the appropriate adjustments to reflect economic 
realities. They continue to stand behind single-basing-point pricing.
  The result has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, 
not because they can't produce a product that can compete in the market 
place, but because the system discriminates against them. Since 1980, 
Wisconsin has lost over 15,000 dairy farmers. Today, Wisconsin loses 
dairy farmers at a rate of 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the 
lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the 
dairy-friendly climate of the region. Other regions with higher fluid 
milk prices are growing rapidly.
  In an unregulated market with a level playing field, these shifts in 
production might be fair. But in a market where the government is 
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions 
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
  This bill is a first step in reforming federal orders by prohibiting 
a grossly unfair practice that should have been dropped long ago. 
Although I understand that, because of mandates in the 1996 Farm Bill, 
the USDA is currently deliberating possible changes to the current 
system, one of the options being considered maintains this debilitating 
single-basing-point pricing system. This bill is the beginning of 
reform. It identifies the one change that is absolutely necessary in 
any outcome--the elimination of single-basing-point pricing.
  I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do the right thing and bring 
reform to this out-dated system. No proposal is reform without this 
important policy change.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 124

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR CLASS 
                   I MILK.

       Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by inserting 
     after ``the locations'' the following: ``within a marketing 
     area subject to the order''; and
       (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the 
     following: ``Notwithstanding subsection (18) or any other 
     provision of law, when fixing minimum prices for milk of the 
     highest use classification in a marketing area subject to an 
     order under this subsection, the Secretary may not, directly 
     or indirectly, base the prices on the distance from, or all 
     or part of the costs incurred to transport milk to or from, 
     any location that is not within the marketing area subject to 
     the order, unless milk from the location constitutes at least 
     50 percent of the total supply of milk of the highest use 
     classification in the marketing area. The Secretary shall 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate on the criteria that are used as 
     the basis for the minimum prices referred to in the preceding 
     sentence, including a certification that the minimum prices 
     are made in accordance with the preceding sentence.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ``the 
     locations'' the following: ``within a marketing area subject 
     to the order''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 125. A bill to reduce the number of executive branch political 
appointees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


     REDUCING THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good 
friend the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) in introducing 
legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. 
Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 
2,000. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this measure 
would save $333 million over the next five years.
  The bill is based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished 
panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force 
on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings, 
released last fall, are only the latest in a long line of 
recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in 
the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in 
CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue 
Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National 
Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve 
Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
  Mr. President, this proposal is also consistent with the 
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and 
supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not 
only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume 
billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.''
  Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the 
Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential 
appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of 
the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the 
number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does.
  Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to 
implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. 
Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But 
as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of 
political appointees in recent years has not made government more 
effective or more responsive to political leadership.
  Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 
percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive 
Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more 
dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government: 
Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul 
Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political 
appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and 
1992.
  In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission 
report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply 
cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The 
Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may 
actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a 
coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries 
accountable.''
  Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also 
restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce 
bureaucratic impediments.
  In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this 
sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown 
increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines 
from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may 
reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job 
effectively. . .''
  The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of 
temporary appointees between the President and career officials can 
undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging 
talented individuals from remaining in government service or even 
pursuing a career in government in the first place.
  Mr. President, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well 
when he noted:

       But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of 
     deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his 
     eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon 
     political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional 
     political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome 
     to see a position one has spent 20 or 30 years preparing for 
     preempted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference 
     between an audit exception and an authorizing bill.

  Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force

[[Page 871]]

on the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem 
aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely 
the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of 
positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and 
President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before 
their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that 
``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more 
than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire 
presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the 
presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, 
on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.''
  In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in 
government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental 
effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force 
reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of 
uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public 
sector.''
  Mr. President, there have been some modest reductions in the number 
of political appointees in recent years, but further reductions are 
needed.
  The sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread 
among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose 
limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish 
to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not 
simply to propose measure that impact someone else.
  As reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies, 
and make government more responsive, we should also right size the 
number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to 
implement the policies of any Administration without burdening the 
Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political 
jobs.
  Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I developed an 
82 point plan to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced 
budget. Since that time, I have continued to work toward enactment of 
many of the provisions of that plan and have added new provisions on a 
regular basis.
  The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points 
included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various 
federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs. I am pleased to 
have this opportunity to continue to work toward implementation of the 
elements of the deficit reduction plan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 125

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``political 
     appointee'' means any individual who--
       (1) is employed in a position on the executive schedule 
     under sections 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the senior executive 
     service as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of 
     title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
       (3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of 
     the Government of a confidential or policy-determining 
     character under Schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title 
     5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Limitation.--The President, acting through the Office 
     of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall take such actions as necessary (including 
     reduction in force actions under procedures established under 
     section 3595 of title 5, United States Code) to ensure that 
     the total number of political appointees shall not exceed 
     2,000.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 126. A bill to terminate the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences; to the Committee on Armed Services.


  TERMINATING THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation 
terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
(USUHS), a medical school run by the Department of Defense. The measure 
is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a 
larger, 82 point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The most 
recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) project that 
terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five 
years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in 
savings over five years.
  USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military 
medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small 
fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994 
according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's 
scholarship program which provided over 80 percent of the military's 
new physicians in that year.
  Mr. President, what is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the 
single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO 
reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician 
costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program 
cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new 
physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO noted in their Spending and 
Revenue Options publication, even adjusting for the lengthier service 
commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training 
them is still higher than that of training physicians from other 
sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's 
estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the 
cost of obtaining physicians from other sources.
  The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on 
several occasions, and the Vice President's National Performance Review 
joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising 
the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first 
class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than 
alternative sources of physicians for the military.
  Mr. President, the real issue we must address is whether USUHS is 
essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do 
without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite 
the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained 
from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, 
but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain 
in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon 
indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate 
mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before 
the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the 
military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the 
services.
  And while USUHS only provides a small fraction of the military's new 
physicians, it is important to note that relying primarily on these 
other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to 
meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management 
and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert 
Storm, only 103, about 5%, were USUHS trained.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by recognizing that USUHS has some 
dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are 
legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this 
institution. The problem, however, is that the federal government can 
no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful 
function.
  This is especially true in the area of defense spending. Many in this 
body argue that the Defense budget is too tight, that a significant 
increase in spending is needed to address concerns about shortfalls in 
recruitment and retention, maintenance backlogs, and other indicators 
of a lower level of readiness.

[[Page 872]]

  Mr. President, the debate over our level of readiness is certainly 
important, and it may well be that more Defense funding should be 
channeled to these specific areas of concern.
  But before advocates of an increased Defense budget ask taxpayers to 
foot the bill for hundreds of billions more in spending, they owe it to 
those taxpayers to trim Defense programs that are not justified.
  In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we 
must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained 
with limited federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of 
fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS 
continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget 
restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which 
must be applied to all federal spending programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 126

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences Termination and Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF 
                   THE HEALTH SCIENCES.

       (a) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--The Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences is terminated.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of 
     such title, and at the beginning of part III of such 
     subtitle, are each amended by striking out the item relating 
     to chapter 104.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Termination.--The termination of the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall take effect on the day after the date of the graduation 
     from the university of the last class of students that 
     enrolled in such university on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection (a)(2) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that the provisions of chapter 104 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect on the day before such date, shall 
     continue to apply with respect to the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences until the termination of 
     the university under this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD;
  S. 127. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from including any storage 
charges in the calculation of loan deficiency payments or loans made to 
producers for loan commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                         COTTON STORAGE SUBSIDY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, 
originally introduced in the 105th Congress. This measure will give 
relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every 
year to provide cotton producers with an expensive and unnecessary perk 
no other farmer enjoys.
  Each year, the Federal Government's Agriculture Department pays 
millions of dollars in storage costs for cotton farmers. Last year, 
this program provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of 
participating farmers. My measure puts all commodities on a more equal 
footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only 
commodity whose producers still enjoy this privilege.
  Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, 
farmers producing wheat and feed grains relied heavily on the Farmer 
Owned Reserve Program to assist them in repaying their overdue loans 
when times were tough. They would roll their non-recourse loans into 
the Farmer Owned Reserve Program which would allow them the opportunity 
to pay back their loan, without interest, and also get assistance in 
paying storage costs. Although cotton producers were not eligible to 
participate in that particular program, they were offered a similar 
subsidy and other perks through the cotton program. Those were the days 
of heavy agriculture subsidization, when the government dictated 
prices, provided price supports, and more often than not, had over-
surpluses of wheat, corn and other feed grains--driving down domestic 
prices. The 1996 Farm Bill, sought to bring farm policy in line with a 
realistic agricultural and economic view, that the agriculture industry 
must be more market oriented--must not rely so much on government price 
interference.
  Mr. President, although the Farm Bill was successful in ridding 
agriculture policy of much of the weight of government intrusion that 
burdened it for years, there are still hidden subsidies costing 
taxpayers billions. This legislation would prevent USDA from factoring 
cotton industry storage costs into Marketing Loan Program calculations. 
This costly and unnecessary benefit is bestowed on the producers of no 
other commodity.
  Farmers, except those who produce cotton, are required to pay storage 
cost through the maturity date of their support loans. Producers must 
prepay or arrange to pay storage costs through the loan maturity date 
or USDA reduces the amount of the loan by deducting the amount 
necessary for prepaid storage. Cotton producers are not required to 
prepay storage costs. When they redeem a loan under marketing loan 
provisions or forfeit collateral, USDA pays the cost of the accrued 
storage.
  It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that in a 1994 audit of the 
cotton program, USDA's Office of Inspector General found no reason for 
USDA to pay the accrued storage costs of cotton producers. The 
Inspector General recommended that USDA ``revise procedures to 
eliminate the automatic payment of cotton storage charges by CCC and 
make provisions consistent with the treatment of storage charges on 
other program crops''.
  Although those in the cotton industry will argue that the automatic 
payments were eliminated in the Farm Bill, in reality, those payments 
are now simply hidden. It's true that certain provisions have been 
removed from the statute which mandates that USDA pay these charges. 
Now, USDA freely chooses to waste the taxpayers money by paying these 
costs, allowing cotton producers to subtract their storage costs from 
the market value of their cotton, providing a larger difference with 
the loan rate, and therefore receiving a higher return.
  Marketing Loan Programs are designed to encourage producers to redeem 
their loans and market their crops, but USDA payment of cotton storage 
costs discourage loan redemption. As long as the adjusted world price 
is at or below the loan rate, producers can delay loan redemption in 
the secure expectation that domestic prices will rise or the adjusted 
world price will decline regardless of accruing storage costs.
  Mr. President, its time to stop kidding ourselves. Let's eliminate 
this subsidy before it costs hardworking Americans any more. Let's 
bring equity to the commodities program. Lets finish what the Farm Bill 
started--a more market oriented agriculture program. One that benefits 
us all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 127

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

       Subtitle C of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 138. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

       ``In calculating the amount of a loan deficiency payment or 
     loan made to a producer for a loan commodity under this 
     subtitle, the Secretary may not include any storage charges 
     incurred by the producer in connection with the loan 
     commodity.''.

[[Page 873]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 128. A bill to terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
Communication System of the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.


  TO TERMINATE OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION 
                           SYSTEM OF THE NAVY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to offer 
a bill to terminate the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communication 
System. I am again pleased to be joined in introducing this bill with 
the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Wyden).
  Mr. President, this bill would terminate the operation of the Navy's 
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, or Project ELF, as it's 
more familiarly known, while maintaining the infrastructure in 
Wisconsin and Michigan for resuming should a resumption in operation 
become necessary. As my colleagues are well aware, I have long opposed 
this needless project.
  Project ELF is an ineffective, unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic 
that is not wanted by most residents in my state. The members of the 
Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project 
ELF; I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking 
office to terminate it; and I have even recommended it for closure to 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
  This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its 
inception, but for years we were told that the national security 
considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this 
installation in our state. As we continue our efforts to truly balance 
the federal budget and as the Department of Defense continues to 
struggle to address readiness concerns, it is clear that Project ELF 
should be closed down. If enacted, my legislation would save 
approximately $12 million a year.
  Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to 
signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident nuclear 
submarines. It is a ``bell ringer'', a pricey beeper system, used to 
tell the submarine when to rise to the surface to get a detailed 
message through a less primitive communications systems.
  It was designed at a time when the threat and consequences of 
detection to our submarines was real. But ELF was never developed to an 
effective capability, and the demise of the Soviet threat has certainly 
rendered it unnecessary.
  In fact, Mr. President, the submarine capabilities of our potential 
adversaries have noticeably deteriorated or remain far behind those of 
our Navy. The primary mission of our attack submarines was to fight the 
heart of the Soviet navy, its attack submarine force. This mission 
included hunting down Soviet submarines. Due to Russia's continued 
economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology 
and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble 
keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines 
operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and 
former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is 
belly-up.''
  Further, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China 
possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. And China's one ballistic 
missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia's 
submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100. 
Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability 
because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. The threat for which 
Project ELF was designed no longer exists.
  Even the Pentagon and members of this body are beginning to see the 
need for reevaluating our strategic forces, including our Trident 
ballistic missile submarines. Earlier this month, Chief of Naval 
Operations Admiral Jay Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee 
that he wants to reduce the fleet from 18 to 14. And Chairman Warner 
agreed with the need to reevaluate priorities on strategic weapons.
  With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder 
to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra 
precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a 
regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also 
receive more complicated messages through very low frequency (VLF) 
radiowaves or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can 
be done more cheaply.
  During the 103rd Congress, I worked with Senator Nunn to include an 
amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1994 requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and 
costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DoD 
was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because 
Project ELF may have had a purpose during the Cold War, it should 
continue to operate after the Cold War as part of the complete 
complement of command and control links configured for the Cold War.
  Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? 
Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it 
continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No.
  In the fiscal year 1996 DoD authorization bill, the Senate cut 
funding for the program, but again it was resurrected in conference.
  I'd like to note here that Members in both Wisconsin and Michigan, 
the states in which Project ELF is located, support terminating the 
project. Also, former Commanders-in-Chief of Strategic Command, General 
George Lee Butler and General Eugene E. Habiger, called for an end to 
cold war nuclear weapons practices, of which Project ELF is a harrowing 
reminder. Additionally, the Center for Defense Information called for 
ending the program, noting that ``U.S. submarines operating under 
present and foreseeable worldwide military conditions can receive all 
necessary orders and instructions in timely fashion without need for 
Project ELF.''
  As I mentioned, this bill would terminate operation of Project ELF, 
but would call for the Defense Department to maintain its 
infrastructure. Should Project ELF become necessary for future military 
action, DoD could quickly bring it back on-line. In essence, this bill 
would save DoD some much-needed operations and maintenance funds 
without degrading its capabilities.
  Mr. President, I'd also like to briefly touch on the public health 
and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two 
decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects 
on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court 
ordered that the project be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate 
attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the 
National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was 
overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over 
public health and environmental concerns.
  More than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic 
pollution and cancer and abnormalities in both animal and plant 
species. Metal fences near the two transmitters must be grounded to 
avoid serious shock from the presence of high voltages.
  Mr. President, last year, an international committee, convened by the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences urged the study of 
electric and magnetic fields as a possible cause of cancer. Project ELF 
produces the same kind of electric and magnetic fields cited by this 
distinguished committee. The committee's announcement seems to confirm 
the fears of many of my constituents.
  And recently, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are 
convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has 
demonstrably reduced milk production.
  In recent years, a coalition of fiscal conservatives and 
environmentalists have targeted Project ELF because it both fiscally 
and environmentally harmful. The coalition, which includes groups like 
the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National

[[Page 874]]

Wildlife Federation, and Friends of the Earth, took aim at about 70 
wasteful and dangerous programs. I hope we take their heed and end this 
program.
  Mr. President, this bill achieves two vital goals of many of my 
colleagues here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary Cold War era 
program, while allowing the Pentagon to address its readiness 
shortfalls. This is a win-win situation and I hope my colleagues will 
support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW 
                   FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
     Communication System of the Navy.
       (b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation 
     of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 129. A bill to terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


             termination of the f/a-18E/F aircraft program

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce 
legislation terminating the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program. 
I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Wyden 
on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, given the Pentagon's self-reported readiness crisis, I 
have serious doubts as to whether we can continue funding this costly 
program while it fails to live up to expectations and continues to 
experience highly visible problems.
  In just the past year, we've been told that the program-threatening 
wing drop problem is solved, but maybe not completely. We've also 
learned that program officials may not have been exactly forthright in 
letting Pentagon superiors in on the seriousness of that problem. We've 
learned that the Super Hornet doesn't meet all of the performance 
standards expected of it. And most recently, we've learned that cracks 
in the aircraft's engines have forced the Navy to approach another 
contractor.
  This, Mr. President, should not be the track record of the plane that 
the Navy called the ``future of naval aviation.'' In fact, this history 
more closely resembles the previously-canceled A-12 attack plane. And I 
know that neither the Pentagon nor the Congress wants another debacle 
like the A-12.
  Mr. President, I began this debate over the Super Hornet in 1997 on 
the basis of the 1996 General Accounting Office report ``Navy Aviation: 
F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.'' 
In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18E/F in 
order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the 
most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical 
aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/
A-18E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program.
  Since that time, I have offered numerous pieces of legislation that 
run the gamut from outright termination of the program to continued 
oversight of it. I asked GAO for a follow-up review. I have even asked 
DoD's Inspector General to investigate various aspects of the program, 
including testing evaluation. The one constant, however, has been the 
program's continuing disappointments.
  Mr. President, as we have all heard by now, wing drop causes the 
aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at altitudes and 
speeds at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur.
  What really disturbs me about wing drop is that almost a year and a 
half went by after the discovery of the problem before the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense acknowledged the problem. The Pentagon's 
ignorance is caused either by shamefully poor communication or the 
withholding of program information by the Navy. For that reason, I have 
asked the DoD Inspector General to take a look at the wing drop fiasco.
  Mr. President, the Navy's Super Hornet test team discovered the wing 
drop problem in March, 1996. In October of that year, the Navy rated it 
a priority problem. On February 5, 1997, wing drop was placed on an 
official deficiency report. In that report, the Navy classified wing 
drop as a **1 deficiency. In other words, one that will cause aircraft 
control loss, equipment destruction, or injury. This is the most 
serious category that the Navy assigns to program deficiencies. In the 
same report, the Super Hornet's test director stated that wing drop, 
``will prevent or severely restrict the performance of air-to-air 
tracking tasks during air-to-air combat maneuvering. Therefore, the 
operational effectiveness will be compromised.'' On March 12, 1997, the 
test team characterized the problem as being ``an unacceptable 
deficiency''.
  Two weeks later, the Navy's Defense Acquisition Board met with the 
test team, which failed to mention the wing drop problem at all. 
Following that meeting, Secretary Cohen approved the group's 
recommendation to spend 1.9 billion dollars for the first dozen Super 
Hornets.
  In November, 1997, the assistant secretary of Defense reportedly 
first informed the Navy Secretary of the wing drop problem. In 
December, the problem was moved to the program's high-risk category. It 
should also be noted that wing drop was considered by the Navy and the 
contractor, Boeing, to be the most challenging technical risk to the 
program at that time. This past February 4, Secretary Cohen stated 
unequivocally that the program would ``not go forward until wing drop 
is corrected.'' A month later, a Navy blue ribbon panel reported that 
the Navy does ``not have a good understanding'' of wing drop and that 
the current porous wing fold fix is ``not a solution''. In May, 
Secretary Cohen released funds for the second round of production 
aircraft. Through it all, the Pentagon apparently didn't think wing 
drop was significant enough to warrant full disclosure.
  Following the release of the 1998 GAO report and reports of the wing 
drop fiasco, I asked the Secretary to document the wing drop problem. 
Specifically, I asked Secretary Cohen questions on who knew of the 
problem and when they knew it.
  In April, I received the Secretary's disappointing response. The 
essence of his answers to my questions is that wing drop was not a 
significant enough issue to warrant disclosure to the Defense 
Acquisition Board before its decision to recommend production of the 
first lot of aircraft.
  Mr. President, given the Navy's classification of wing drop, the test 
director's assessment of the mission impact, and the significant 
efforts that were underway to resolve the problem, the Navy's failure 
to discuss the wing drop problem with DoD officials responsible for 
making the decision on whether to proceed into production of the 
initial Super Hornets reflects, in my view, questionable judgement at 
best and underscores the need for continued DoD and congressional 
oversight of the Super Hornet's development and production program.
  One final point, Mr. President. It should be made clear that DoD and 
the Navy did not begin openly discussing wing drop until after the 
assistant secretary John Douglass' November 20, 1997, memo on the issue 
to Navy Secretary John Dalton appeared in the press. In fact, during a 
February, 1998, hearing before the House National Security Committee's 
Research and Development Subcommittee, Chairman Curt Weldon voiced his 
displeasure with having to learn about the Super Hornet's wing drop 
problem through the media rather than from the Navy. If the chairman of 
the subcommittee responsible for the development of the Super Hornet 
has to rely on the media to learn about one of the Defense Department's 
costliest programs, then I think it's fairly reliable that all the 
information was not made available.

[[Page 875]]

  Mr. President, the Navy has based the need for development and 
procurement of the F/A-18E/F on existing or projected operational 
deficiencies of the F/A-18C/D Hornet in the following key areas: strike 
range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the 
Navy notes limitations of current Hornets with respect to avionics 
growth space and payload capacity.
  The Navy and Boeing call these points the ``five pillars'' of the 
Super Hornet program. The most recent GAO report and my review of the 
program show that the five pillars are weak and crumbling.
  GAO identifies problems with the Super Hornet in each of these five 
areas. Meanwhile, the Navy's responses to the criticisms are at odds 
with their own arguments in favor of the program. In the 1998 report, 
GAO identified problems that may diminish the effectiveness of the 
plane's survivability improvements, problems that could degrade engine 
performance and service life, and dangerous weapons separation problems 
that require additional testing.
  In July, 1997, the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board stated that 
``operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not 
operationally effective or suitable.'' That December, the board 
reversed its position and said the E/F is potentially operationally 
effective and suitable, but also reiterated its concerns with certain 
systems that are supposed to make the Super Hornet superior to the 
Hornet.
  These are not glowing reviews for any program, but are downright 
awful for an aircraft program slated to cost upwards of $100 billion. 
We should not gamble with our pilots' lives and more than 100 billion 
taxpayer dollars. These stakes are too high.
  Also in the report, GAO asserted the Super Hornet doesn't accelerate 
or maneuver as well as the Hornet. DoD readily agrees, but maintains 
that this is an acceptable trade-off for other capabilities. I wonder 
if a pilot under fire would agree.
  It gets better, Mr. President. The publication, Inside the Pentagon, 
reported last February that the Navy will not hold the Super Hornet to 
strict performance specifications in three areas. It published a copy 
of a memo written by Rear Admiral Dennis McGinn, the Navy's officer in 
charge of air warfare programs, that ordered the E/F would not be 
strictly held to performance specifications in turning, climbing and 
maneuvering.
  Everyone can agree that these are important performance criteria for 
a state-of-the-art fighter and attack plane. It turns out that this 
memo was sent to the E/F test team after the team concluded that the 
Super Hornet was, in some cases, not as proficient in turning or 
accelerating as the Hornet. The test team concluded that the single-
seat E, when outfitted with a relatively light load of air-to-air 
missiles, is ``slightly less'' capable than the single-seat C in terms 
of instantaneous turn performance, sustained turn performance, and in 
some cases, of unloaded acceleration. Interestingly enough, the C 
models used in the comparisons were not even the most advanced C's 
available. These deficiencies haven't improved since then.
  GAO also said that the Navy board's program officials came to ``the 
realization that the F/A-18E/F may not be as capable in a number of 
operational performance areas as the most recently procured `C' model 
aircraft that are equipped with an enhanced performance engine.''
  Mr. President, the Navy's own test team has stated that the new plane 
does not perform as well as the reliable version currently in use in 
key performance areas. But this isn't enough. The Navy now says these 
performance criteria are not important. Mr. President, this is 
shameful.
  In its 1996 report, GAO reached a number of conclusions. It found 
that the Super Hornet offers only marginal improvements over the 
Hornet, and that these are far outweighed by the high cost. It found 
that the Hornet can be modified to meet every capacity the Super Hornet 
is intended to fulfill. And GAO found that the Defense Department could 
save $17 billion by purchasing additional improved Hornets instead of 
Super Hornets. The Congressional Budget Office updated that cost 
savings last year to $15 billion, still a princely sum, especially 
given DoD's hopes of increasing defense spending by roughly that amount 
each year for the next six years.
  The report also addressed other purported improvements of the Super 
Hornet over the Hornet. GAO concluded that the reported operational 
deficiencies of the C/D that the Navy cited to justify the E/F either 
have not materialized as projected or that such deficiencies can be 
corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional 
upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities.
  GAO even rebutted all of the claims of the Hornet's disadvantages. 
The report concluded that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements 
can be met by either the E/F or the C/D, and that the E/F's increased 
range is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance. It 
notes that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require 
aerial refueling for low-altitude missions.
  Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the E/F's increased strike 
range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat 
performance. This is shown by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and 
acceleration--critical components of its ability to maneuver in either 
offensive or defensive modes.
  GAO also disputes the Navy's contention that the C/D cannot carry 480 
gallon external fuel tanks. Next, the deficiency in carrier recovery 
payload which the Navy anticipated for the F/ A-18C simply has not 
materialized. GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-
18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier 
payloads of more than 10,000 pounds, greater than the 9,000 pounds 
sought for the F/A-18E/F.
  Additional improvements have been made or are planned for the Hornet 
to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar 
detectability, while survivability improvements of the Super Hornet are 
questionable. For example, because the Super Hornet will be carrying 
weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements 
derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished 
and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the 
Hornet into an integrated defensive system before being detected.
  Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, we should recall the 
outstanding performance of the Hornet in the Gulf War a few years ago. 
By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, and, 
in the Navy's own words, experienced ``unprecedented survivability.''
  The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the Hornet would not have 
growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under 
development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996, 
C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future 
avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been 
identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological 
advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may 
result in additional growth space for future avionics.
  Also, while the Super Hornet will provide some increase in air-to-air 
capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its 
ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons 
that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets nor to 
deliver heavier standoff weapons that will be used to increase aircraft 
survivability.
  So we have a plane that doesn't really do the things the Navy said it 
would do, and in some cases does not perform as well as the older 
version, but we're supposed to pay probably three times more for the 
Super Hornet.
  Mr. President, it's time we ended this fiasco once and for all. The 
program already costs tens of billions of dollars more than initial 
Navy estimates and costs continues to rise. Additionally, we must 
compare the estimated $73 million cost per plane for the Super Hornet 
to the $28 million per plane for the Hornet. And, as I have mentioned,

[[Page 876]]

some projections put the total program cost of the F/A-18E/F at close 
to $100 billion.
  Mr. President, let me briefly highlight the ballooning cost of the 
Super Hornet. Just a few years ago, the Navy, using overstated 
assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated 
annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, calculated a unit 
recurring flyaway cost of $44 million. However, using GAO's more 
realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, 
at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring 
flyaway cost of the Super Hornet ballooned to $53 million. Last year, 
the Navy used more realistic procurement figures of 548 aircraft with 
annual production at 36 aircraft per year, which brought the unit cost 
to $73 million. And I am fairly safe in assuming this figure will only 
rise. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost 
for the Hornet. CBO estimates that this cost difference in unit 
recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $15 billion if 
the Navy were to procure the Hornets rather than the Super Hornets.
  Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in 
operational capabilities the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that 
the justification for it just isn't there. Proceeding with the Super 
Hornet program may not be the most cost-effective approach to 
modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the 
Navy can continue to procure the Hornet aircraft, while upgrading it to 
improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the 
Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which 
will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the 
Super Hornet.
  Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18C/D is a top-quality 
aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could 
be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over 
the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost.
  Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly 
overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole 
fighter programs, it is clear that we must discontinue the Super Hornet 
program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another 
unnecessary, flawed multi-billion dollar program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 129

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.
       (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available for 
     procurement and for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation that are available on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act for obligation for the F/A-18E/F 
     aircraft program may be obligated for that program only for 
     payment of the costs associated with the termination of the 
     program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 130. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the 
dependent care credit refundable, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 131. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite 
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of 
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic 
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.


                       long term care assistance

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long term care is an issue that continues 
to tug at Congress and this country. In 1995 the federal and state 
governments spent $23 billion on long term care and another $21 billion 
for home care. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care 
will grow from 7.3 million today to 10-14 million by 2020--potentially 
a doubling of those in need.
  The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is 
made by that individual and their loved ones. But we all know the truth 
is that in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the 
family. For many people, remaining at home is their choice. It allows 
them to remain with their loved ones in familiar surroundings. We need 
to do more to assist these people and their families if this is their 
choice.
  Toward that end I am reintroducing a bill that provides a tax credit 
for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's 
disease. When I first came to Congress 20 years ago, not a single piece 
of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been introduced. 
We have come along way since then, as today `Alzheimer's' is a 
household word. It is also the most expensive uninsured illness in 
America. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth-
approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer 
and heart disease. And the number of those affected by this disease is 
rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to 
over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century.
  As staggering as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the 
emotional costs this disease places on the family. We can help lessen 
that cost by providing some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their 
families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care 
and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from 
Alzheimer's disease.
  My second bill will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and 
restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of 
the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill expands the dependent 
care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses and 
makes it refundable.
  As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of 
our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both 
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large 
burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can 
range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is in 
excess of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many 
families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income 
brackets.
  In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and 
moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related 
dependent care. We haven't changed the DCTC since it was created 23 
years ago and in fact, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the 
basic provisions of the tax code that determine tax liability except 
for DCTC. We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect 
today's world. My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to 
inflation and making it refundable so that those who do not reach the 
tax thresholds will still receive assistance. It also raises the DCTC 
sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care 
expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then 
be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 of income, 
down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more.
  In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill 
also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, 
thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care 
credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent 
care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that 
will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care 
to their loved ones at home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 132. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
comprehensive pension protection for women; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                 women's pension protection act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve 
the

[[Page 877]]

retirement security of women. Even with the increasing number of women 
entering the workforce, only 39 percent of part-time and full-time 
working women are covered by a pension plan.
  While women have come a long way, even now a woman makes only 75 
cents for every dollar a man makes--and older women are payed even 
less: 66 cents for every dollar earned by a 55-year-old man. In 
addition, as we all know, women have spent more time outside the 
workforce because they have spent more time inside the household 
raising families. These two factors help explain why older women are 
twice as likely as older men to be poor or near poor; with nearly 40 
percent of older women who live alone live in or near poverty.
  This bill makes a number of changes in current pension law including: 
helping to ensure that pension benefits earned during a marriage are 
considered and divided fairly in the event of divorce; closing 
loopholes in the civil service and railroad retirement laws that have 
resulted in the loss of pension benefits for widows and ex-spouses of 
beneficiaries in such plans and increases the amount of information 
available by establishing a pension ``hotline'' at the Department of 
Labor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 134. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study 
whether the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should be protected as a 
wilderness area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         Gaylord Nelson apostle islands stewardship act of 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Gaylord 
Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have 
the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) join me as an original 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Many outside Wisconsin may not know that, in addition to founding 
Earth Day, Senator Nelson was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore Act. That act, which passed in 1970, 
protects one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, at which I 
spend my vacation with my family every year.
  Though Senator Nelson has received many awards, I know that among his 
proudest accomplishments are those bills he crafted which have produced 
real and lasting change in preserving America's lands, such as the 
Apostle Islands.
  The Apostle Islands National Lakshore includes 21 forested islands 
and 12 miles of pristine shoreline which are among the Great Lakes' 
most spectacular scenery. Centuries of wave action, freezing, and 
thawing have sculpted the shorelines, and nature has carved intricate 
caves into the sandstone which forms the islands. Delicate arches, 
vaulted chambers, and hidden passageways honeycomb cliffs on the north 
shore of Devils Island, Swallow Point on Sand Island, and northeast of 
Cornucopia on the mainland. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 
includes more lighthouses than any other coastline of similar size in 
the United States, and is home to diverse wildlife including: black 
bear, bald eagles and deer. It is an important recreational area as 
well. Its campgrounds and acres of forest, make the Apostles a favorite 
destination for hikers, sailors, kayakers, and bikers. The Lakeshore 
also includes the underwater lakebed as well, and scuba divers register 
with the National Park Service to view the area's underwater resources.
  Unfortunately, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore finds itself, 
nearly 29 years later, with significant financial and legal resource 
needs, as do many of the lands managed by the National Park Service. If 
we are to be true stewards of America's public lands, we need to be 
willing to make necessary financial investments and management 
improvements when they are warranted. I introduce this legislation in 
an attempt to resolve the unfinished business that remains at the 
Lakeshore, as well as to renew our Nation's commitment to this 
beautiful place.
  Mr. President, the legislation has three major sections. First, it 
authorizes the Park Service to conduct a wilderness suitability study 
of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act.
  This study is needed to ensure that we have the appropriate level of 
management at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Wilderness 
Act and the National Park Service policies require the Park Service to 
conduct an evaluation of the lands it manages for possible inclusion in 
the National Wilderness system. The study would result in a 
recommendation to Congress about whether any of the federally-owned 
lands currently within the Lakeshore still retain the characteristics 
that would make them suitable to be legally designated as wilderness. 
If Congress found the study indicated that some of the federal lands 
within the Lakeshore were in need of legal wilderness status, Congress 
would have to subsequently pass legislation to confer such status.
  We need this study, Mr. President, because 28 years have passed and 
it is time to determine the proper level of management for the 
Lakeshore. During the General Management Planning Process for the 
Lakeshore, which was completed nearly a decade ago in 1989, the need 
for a formal wilderness study was identified. Although a wilderness 
study has been identified as a high priority by the Lakeshore, it has 
never been funded.
  Since 1989, most of the Lakeshore, roughly 80 percent of the acreage, 
is being managed by the Park Service as if it were federally designated 
wilderness. As a protective measure, all lands which might be suitable 
for wilderness designation were zoned to protect any wilderness 
characteristics they may have pending completion of the study. However, 
we may be managing lands as wilderness in the Lakeshore that might, due 
to use patterns, no longer be suitable for wilderness designation. 
Correspondingly, some land area may have become more ecologically 
sensitive and may need additional legal protection.
  Second, this legislation also directs the Park Service to protect the 
historic Raspberry Island and Outer Island lighthouses. The bill 
authorizes $3.9 million for bluff stabilization and other necessary 
actions. There are six lighthouses in the Apostle Island National 
Lakeshore--Sand Island, Devil's Island, Raspberry Island, Outer Island, 
Long Island and Michigan Island. Engineering studies completed for the 
National Park Service have determined that several of these lighthouses 
are in danger of structural damage due to the continued erosion of the 
red clay banks upon which they were built. The situations at Outer 
Island and Raspberry Island, the two which this legislation addresses, 
were determined to be in the most jeopardy.
  Last year, as part of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill, $215,000 
was provided to the Apostle Island National Seashore for the 
rehabilitation of the historic lighthouses. While the funding was a 
commendable first step, it will allow only for preliminary engineering 
assessments of how to best protect these landmarks. We must go further 
to ensure that these precious and fragile beacons do not simply crumble 
into Lake Superior.
  The Raspberry Island situation is most critical. The Raspberry Island 
lighthouse was completed in 1863 to make the west channel through the 
Apostle Islands. The original light was a rectangular frame structure 
topped by a square tower that held a lens 40 feet above the ground.
  A fog signal building was added to Raspberry Island in 1902. The red 
brick structure housed a ten-inch steam whistle and a hoisting engine 
for a tramway. The need for additional personnel at the station led to 
a redesign of the lighthouse building in 1906-07. The structure was 
converted to a duplex, housing the keeper and his family in the east 
half, with the two assistant keepers sharing the west half. A 23-
kilowatt, diesel-driven electric generator was installed at the station 
in 1928. The light was automated in 1947 and then moved to a metal 
tower in front of the fog signal building in 1952.

[[Page 878]]

  Raspberry Island light is now the most frequently visited of Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore's lighthouses. Recent erosion is threatening 
the access tram and the fog signal building.
  The Outer Island light station was built in 1874 on a red clay bluff 
40 feet above Lake Superior. The lighthouse tower stands 90 feet high 
and the watchroom is encircled by an outside walkway and topped by the 
lantern. As its name implies, the light is stationed on the outermost 
island of the Apostle archipelago, fully exposed to Lake Superior's 
gale-force storms.
  Historic architects have indicated to the Park Service that Outer 
Island lighthouse may already be suffering some structural damage due 
to its location on the bluff and the situation would be much worse if 
Lake Superior were exceedingly high.
  Engineers believe that preservation of these structures requires 
protection of the bluff beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the 
banks, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the bluffs. 
Although the projects have in the past been included within the Park 
Service-wide construction priorities, they have never been funded. The 
specific authorization and funding contained in this legislation is 
essential if the projects are ever to receive the attention they so 
urgently deserve.
  In keeping with my belief that progress toward a balanced budget 
should be maintained, I am proposing that the $4.1 million in 
authorized spending for the Apostle Islands contained in this 
legislation be offset by rescinding $10 million in unspent funds from 
$40 million in funds carried over for the Department of Energy's Clean 
Coal Technology Program in FY 99 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The 
Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer $5.9 million 
above the money that it needs to take actions at the Apostle Islands 
back to the Treasury.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that we have set aside such a large 
amount of money for the Clean Coal Technology Program, which the 
program has been unable to spend, when we have acute appropriations 
needs at places like the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
  Finally, this legislation adds language to the act which created the 
Lakeshore allowing the Park Service to enter into cooperative 
agreements with state, tribal, local governments, universities or other 
non-profit entities to enlist their assistance in managing the 
Lakeshore. Some parks have specific language in the act which created 
the park allowing them to enter into such agreements. Parks have used 
them for activities such as research, historic preservation, and 
emergency services. Apostle Islands currently does not have this 
authority, which this legislation adds.
  Other National Park lands and lands which are managed by the Park 
Service, such as the Lakeshore, have such authority. Adding that 
authority to the Lakeshore will be a way to make Lakeshore management 
resources go farther. The Park Service has the opportunity to carry out 
joint projects with other partners which could contribute to the 
management of the Lakeshore including: state, local, and tribal 
governments, universities, and non-profit groups. Such endeavors would 
have both scientific management and fiscal benefits. In the past, the 
Lakeshore has had to forego these opportunities because the specific 
authority is absent under current law.
  In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance, 
Senator Nelson issued a political challenge:

       I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic 
     problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of 
     our natural resources and the disaster which would confront 
     mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real 
     question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two 
     hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State 
     and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, 
     will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this 
     supreme test.

  Though the Apostle Islands are not, because of former Senator 
Nelson's efforts, ``threatened with destruction,'' they are a fitting 
place for us to rise to this challenge. I believe that Senator Nelson 
meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government 
must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but 
he also meant that government must be responsible and flexible enough 
to remain committed to the protection of the areas we wisely seek to 
preserve under our laws.
  Thus, Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation as a 
renewal of the federal government's commitment to the Apostle Islands 
National Lakeshore. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 134

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gaylord Nelson Apostle 
     Islands Stewardship Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS.

       (a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
       (1) the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a national 
     and a Wisconsin treasure;
       (2) the State of Wisconsin is particularly indebted to 
     former Senator Gaylord Nelson for his leadership in the 
     creation of the Lakeshore;
       (3) after more than 28 years of enjoyment, some issues 
     critical to maintaining the overall ecological, recreational, 
     and cultural vision of the Lakeshore need additional 
     attention;
       (4) the general management planning process for the 
     Lakeshore has identified a need for a formal wilderness 
     study;
       (5) all land within the Lakeshore that might be suitable 
     for designation as wilderness are zoned and managed to 
     protect wilderness characteristics pending completion of such 
     a study;
       (6) several historic lighthouses within the Lakeshore are 
     in danger of structural damage due to severe erosion;
       (7) the Secretary of the Interior has been unable to take 
     full advantage of cooperative agreements with Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal governmental agencies, institutions of 
     higher education, and other nonprofit organizations that 
     could assist the National Park Service by contributing to the 
     management of the Lakeshore;
       (8) because of competing needs in other units of the 
     National Park System, the standard authorizing and budgetary 
     process has not resulted in updated legislative authority and 
     necessary funding for improvements to the Lakeshore; and
       (9) the need for improvements to the Lakeshore and 
     completion of a wilderness study should be accorded a high 
     priority among National Park Service activities.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Lakeshore.--The term ``Lakeshore'' means the Apostle 
     Islands National Lakeshore.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.
       (c) Wilderness Study.--In fulfillment of the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wilderness Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and of applicable agency policy, the 
     Secretary shall evaluate areas of land within the Lakeshore 
     for inclusion in the National Wilderness System.
       (d) Apostle Islands Lighthouses.--The Secretary shall 
     undertake appropriate action (including protection of the 
     bluff toe beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the bank 
     face, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the 
     bluffs) to protect the lighthouse structures at Raspberry 
     Lighthouse and Outer Island Lighthouse on the Lakeshore.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 6 of Public Law 91-424 
     (16 U.S.C. 460w-5) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 6. The lakeshore'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The lakeshore''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     a cooperative agreement with a Federal, State, tribal, or 
     local government agency or a nonprofit private entity if the 
     Secretary determines that a cooperative agreement would be 
     beneficial in carrying out section 7.''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $200,000 to carry out subsection (c); and
       (2) $3,900,000 to carry out subsection (d).
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``clean coal technology'' under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' for obligation in prior years, in 
     addition to the funds deferred under the heading ``clean coal 
     technology'' under the

[[Page 879]]

     heading ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' under section 101(e) of 
     division A of Public Law 105-277--
       (A) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 
     2000; and
       (B) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 
     2001.
       (2) Ongoing projects.--Funds made available in previous 
     appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing 
     project regardless of the separate request for proposal under 
     which the project was selected.
       (3) Transfer of funds.--In addition to any amounts made 
     available under subsection (f), amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Secretary for use 
     in carrying out subsections (c) and (d).
       (4) Unexpended balance.--Any balance of funds transferred 
     under paragraph (3) that remain unexpended at the end of 
     fiscal year 1999 shall be returned to the Treasury.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Baucus):
  S. 136, A bill to provide for teacher excellence and classroom help; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     teacher excellence act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, states and local communities are making 
significant progress toward improving their public schools. Almost 
every state has developed challenging academic standards for all 
students to meet--and they are holding schools accountable for results.
  But just setting standards isn't enough. Schools and communities have 
to do more to ensure improved student achievement. Schools must have 
small classes, particularly in the early grades. They must have strong 
parent involvement. They must have safe, modern facilities with up-to-
date technology. They must have high-quality after-school opportunities 
for children who need extra help. They must have well-trained teachers 
in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field 
and the best teaching practices.
  Last year, with broad bipartisan support, Congress made substantial 
investments in the nation's public schools to reduce class size, expand 
after-school programs, and improve the initial training of teachers. 
However, more needs to be done.
  Education must continue to be a top priority in the new Congress. We 
must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and 
children, so that all children have an opportunity to attend good 
schools. We need to do more to help communities modernize their 
schools, reduce class sizes, especially in grades 1-3, improve the 
quality of the nation's teachers, and expand after-school programs.
  These steps are urgently needed to help communities address the 
serious problems of rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms, 
dilapidated schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high 
turnover rates of teachers, and lack of after-school programs. These 
are real problems that deserve real solutions.
  The needs of families across the nation should not be ignored. They 
want the federal government to offer a helping hand in improving public 
schools.
  This year, the nation has set a new record for elementary and 
secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an all-time high 
of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last year.
  Serious teacher shortages are being caused by rising student 
enrollments, and also by the growing number of teacher retirements. The 
nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers over the 
next ten years, just to hold their own. If we don't act now, the need 
for more teachers will put even greater pressure on school districts to 
lower their standards and hire unqualified teachers.
  Also, too many teachers leave within the first three years of 
teaching--including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas--because they 
don't get the support and mentoring they need to succeed. Veteran 
teachers and principals need more and better opportunities for 
professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills, to 
integrate technology into the curriculum, and to help children meet 
high standards.
  We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire 
100,000 new teachers, in order to reduce class size. But it is equally 
important that we help communities recruit promising teacher 
candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will help 
them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the on-going 
training they need to stay abreast of modern technologies and new 
research.
  Many communities are working hard to attract, keep, and support good 
teachers--and often they're succeeding.
  The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program has recruited 3,600 high-
ability high school graduates to go into teaching. The students agree 
to teach for four years in the state's public schools in exchange for a 
four-year college scholarship. North Carolina principals report that 
the performance of the Fellows far exceeds other new teachers.
  In Chicago, a program called the Golden Apple Scholars of Illinois 
recruits promising young men and women into the profession by selecting 
them during their junior year of high school, then mentoring them 
through the rest of high school, college, and five years of actual 
teaching. 60 Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year, 
and 90 percent of them stay in the classroom.
  Colorado State University's Project Promise recruits prospective 
teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading and 
medicine. Current teachers mentor graduates in their first two years of 
teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field, and 80 
percent stay for at least five years.
  New York City's Mentor Teacher Internship Program has increased the 
retention of new teachers. In Montana, only 4 percent of new teachers 
in mentoring programs left after their first year of teaching, compared 
with 28 percent of teachers without mentoring programs.
  New York City's District 2 has made professional development the 
central component for improving schools. They believe that student 
learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it's 
working. In 1996, student math scores were second in the city.
  Massachusetts has invested $60 million in the Teacher Quality 
Endowment Fund to launch the 12-to-62 Plan for Strengthening 
Massachusetts Future Teaching Force. The plan being developed is a 
comprehensive effort to improve recruitment, retention, and 
professional development of teachers throughout their careers.
  Congress should build on and support these successful efforts across 
the country to ensure that the nation's teaching force is strong and 
successful in the years ahead.
  The Teacher Excellence Act we are introducing will invest $1.2 
billion in fiscal year 2000 to improve the recruitment, retention, and 
on-going professional development of the nation's teachers. The 
proposal will provide states and local school districts with the 
support they need to recruit excellent teacher candidates, to retain 
and support promising beginning teachers, and to provide veteran 
teachers and principals with the on-going professional development they 
need to help all children meet high standards of achievement.
  States will receive grants through the current Title I or Title II 
formula, whichever is greater. They will use 20 percent of the funding 
to provide scholarships to prospective teachers--whether they are high 
school graduates, professionals who want to make a career change, or 
paraprofessionals who want to become fully certified as teachers. 
Scholarship recipients must agree to teach for at least 3 years after 
completion of the teaching degree and teach in a high-need school 
district or in a high-need subject.
  At least 70 percent of the funds must go to local school districts on 
a competitive basis to implement, improve or expand high-quality 
programs for beginning teachers, including mentoring and internship 
programs, and provide high-quality professional development for 
principals and veteran teachers. Our goal is to ensure that

[[Page 880]]

every child has the opportunity to meet high state standards. States 
must also set additional eligibility criteria, including the poverty 
rate of the school district; the need for support based on low student 
achievement and low teacher retention rates; and the need for upgrading 
the knowledge and skills of veteran teachers in high-priority content 
areas. Other criteria include the need to help students with 
disabilities and limited English proficiency. States must target grants 
to school districts with the highest needs and ensure a fair 
distribution of grants among school districts serving urban and rural 
areas.
  In addition to providing states and communities with the support they 
need to ensure that there is a qualified, well-trained teacher in every 
classroom, we must also hold states and communities accountable for 
results--and for making the changes that will achieve those results.
  Currently, teachers are often assigned subjects in which they have no 
training or experience. Nearly one-fourth of all secondary school 
teachers do not have even a college minor in their main teaching field, 
let alone a college major. This fact is true for more than 50 percent 
of math teachers. 56 percent of high school students taking a physical 
science course are taught by out-of-field teachers, as are 27 percent 
of those taking mathematics, and 21 percent of those taking English. 
The proportions are much higher in high-poverty schools. In schools 
with the highest minority enrollments, students have less than a 50 
percent chance of having science or math teachers who hold a license 
and a degree in the field they teach.
  Because of teacher shortages caused by rising enrollments and teacher 
retirements, communities must often lower their standards and hire 
unqualified teachers. Currently, communities across the country have 
hired 50,000 unqualified teachers in order to address such shortages. 
More than 12 percent of newly hired teachers have no training and 15 
percent of new teachers enter teaching without meeting state standards.
  Under the Teacher Excellence Act, states and communities will be held 
accountable for reducing the number of emergency certified teachers and 
out-of-field placements of teachers. As they work to improve 
recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers, 
states and communities should also reduce these practices that 
undermine efforts to help all students meet high standards. States will 
be able to use up to 10 percent of the funds in order to meet these 
accountability requirements.
  In addition, the bill supports the full $300 million for funding of 
Title II of the Higher Education Act to improve the initial preparation 
of teachers. Also, current support for technology programs must include 
a requirement for training teachers in how to use technologies 
effectively to improve student learning.
  We must do all we can to improve teacher quality across the country. 
What teachers know and are able to teach are among the most important 
influences on student achievement. Improving teacher quality is an 
effective way to link high state standards to the classroom. We should 
do all we can to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn 
from a qualified, well-trained teacher and to attend a school with a 
well-trained principal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 137. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the increase in tax on social security benefits; to the Committee on 
Finance.


           The Senior Citizens Income Tax Relief Act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens 
Income Tax Relief Act. This legislation would give seniors relief from 
the Clinton Social Security tax increase of 1993. I introduced this 
bill on August 5, 1993, the day this tax was first imposed on America's 
senior citizens.
  Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
recently predicted that the federal government would generate a budget 
surplus of up to $700 billion over the next 10 years. He proposed that 
roughly $600 billion of this surplus be used to fund a tax cut. I could 
not agree more. I will be working with Senator Domenici and members of 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle to ensure that there will be 
sufficient room in this surplus for Social Security tax relief for 
senior citizens.
  Millions of America's senior citizens depend on Social Security as a 
critical part of their retirement income. Having paid into the program 
throughout their working lives, retirees count on the government to 
meet its obligations under the Social Security contract. For many, the 
security provided by this supplemental pension plan is the difference 
between a happy and healthy retirement and one marked by uncertainty 
and apprehension, particularly for the vast majority of seniors on 
fixed incomes.
  As part of his massive 1993 tax hike, President Clinton imposed a tax 
increase on senior citizens, subjecting to taxation up to 85 percent of 
the Social Security received by seniors with annual incomes of over 
$34,000 and couples with over $44,000 in annual income.
  This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate for 
these seniors. Factor in the government's ``Social Security Earnings 
Limitation,'' and a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent--
twice the rate paid by millionaires.
  An analysis of government-provided figures on the 1993 Social 
Security tax increase finds that, at the end of 1998, America's seniors 
have paid an extra $25 billion because of this tax hike, including $380 
million from senior citizens in Arizona alone.
  Mr. President, I want to make an additional important point. Despite 
all the partisan demagoguery, the only attack on Social Security in 
recent years has come from the administration and the other party in 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Not one Republican 
supported this tax increase on Social Security benefits.
  If the administration opposes any meaningful tax cut, the relief we 
will be able to provide will be limited. It will be difficult, then, to 
repeal the Social Security tax increase. This is why, in the 105th 
Congress, I offered an amendment to ensure that we are able to expand 
tax relief in the future, and why the first tax relief proposal I am 
introducing in the 106th Congress will repeal President Clinton's 1993 
Social Security tax increase.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for expenses of attending elementary and 
secondary schools and for contributions to charitable organizations 
which provide scholarships for children to attend such schools; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                j-12 community participation act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an education proposal 
that will increase parental and student choice, educational quality, 
and school safety.
  A colleague from the Arizona delegation, representative Matt Salmon, 
is today introducing this proposal in the House of Representatives.
  The ``K through 12 Community Participation Act'' would offer tax 
credits to families and businesses of up to $250 annually for qualified 
K through 12 education expenses or activities.
  Over the last 30 years, Americans have steadily increased their 
monetary commitment to education. Unfortunately, we have not seen a 
corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children 
receive. Given our financial commitment, and the great importance of 
education, these results are unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I believe the problem is not how much money is spent, 
but how it is spent, and by whom.
  The K through 12 Community Participation Education Act addresses the 
problem of falling education standards by giving families and 
businesses a tax incentive to provide children with a higher quality 
education through choice and competition.
  The problem of declining education standards is illustrated by a 1998 
report

[[Page 881]]

released by the Education and Workforce Committee of the House of 
Representatives, Education at the Crossroads. This is the most 
comprehensive review of federal education programs ever undertaken by 
the United States Congress. It shows that the federal government's 
response to the decline in American schools has been to build bigger 
bureaucracies, not a better education system.
  According to the report, there are more than 760 federal education 
programs overseen by at least 39 federal agencies at a cost of $100 
billion a year to taxpayers. These programs are overlapping and 
duplicative.
  For example, there are 63 separate (but similar) math and science 
programs, 14 literacy programs, and 11 drug-education programs. Even 
after accounting for recent streamlining efforts, the U.S. Department 
of Education still requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork 
per year--this is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time.
  States get at most seven percent of their total education funds from 
the federal government, but most states report that roughly half of 
their paperwork is imposed by federal education authorities.
  The federal government spends tax dollars on closed captioning of 
``educational'' programs such as ``Baywatch'' and Jerry Springer's 
squalid daytime talk show.
  With such a large number of programs funded by the federal 
government, it's no wonder local school authorities feel the heavy hand 
of Washington upon them.
  And what are the nation's taxpayers getting for their money? 
According to the report,
  Around 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read; and 57 percent of 
urban students score below their grade level.
  Half of all students from urban school districts fail to graduate on 
time, if at all.
  U.S. 12th graders ranked third from the bottom out of 21 nations in 
mathematics.
  According to U.S. manufacturers, 40 percent of all 17-year-olds do 
not have the math skills to hold down a production job at a 
manufacturing company.
  The conclusion of the Education at the Crossroads report is that the 
federally designed ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to education is 
simply not working.
  Mr. President, I believe we need a federal education policy that 
will:
  Give parents more control.
  Give local schools and school boards more control.
  Spend dollars in the classrooms, not on a Washington bureaucracy.
  Reaffirm our commitment to basic academics.
  My state of Arizona has led the way with education tax credit 
legislation passed in 1997. This state law provides tax credits that 
can be used by parents and businesses to cover certain types of 
expenses attendant to primary and secondary education.
  Mr. President, today, Representative Salmon and I are reintroducing a 
form of the Arizona education tax-credit law.
  The K through 12 Community Participating Education Act would be 
phased in over four years and would encourage parents, businesses, and 
other members of the community to invest in our children's education.
  Specifically, it offers every family or business a tax credit of up 
to $250 annually for any K through 12 education expense or activity. 
This tax credit could be applied to home schooling, public schools 
(including charter schools), or parochial schools. Allowable expenses 
would include tuition, books, supplies, and tutors.
  Further, the tax credit could be given to a ``school-tuition 
organization'' for distribution. To qualify as a school-tuition 
organization, the organization would have to devote at least 90 percent 
of its income per year to offering available grants and scholarships 
for parents to use to send their children to the school of their 
choice.
  How would this work? A group of businesses in any community could 
join forces to send sums for which they received tax credits to 
charitable ``school-tuition organizations'' which would make 
scholarships and grants available to low income parents of children 
currently struggling to learn in unsafe, non-functional schools.
  Providing all parents--including low income parents--increased 
freedom to choose will foster competition and increase parental 
involvement in education.
  Insuring this choice will make the federal education tax code more 
like Arizona's. It is a limited but important step the Congress and the 
President can--and I believe, must--take.
  Mr. President, it's clear that top-down, one-size-fits-all, big 
government education policy has failed our children and our country.
  This tax-credit legislation will refocus our efforts on doing what is 
in the best interests of the child as determined by parents, and will 
give parents and businesses the opportunity to take an important step 
to rescue American education so that we can have the educated citizenry 
that Thomas Jefferson said was essential to our health as a nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 139. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee 
have thirty days to report or be discharged.


           separate enrollment and line item veto act of 1999

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Separate Enrollment 
and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. I'm pleased to be joined by my long-
time colleague and tireless fighter for budget sanity, Senator Hollings 
of South Carolina.
  As former governors, we both understand the importance of line-item 
veto authority in prioritizing spending. The legislation we introduce 
today is similar to that passed by the Senate in 1995, which is 
patterned on the separate enrollment process that we both supported 
with former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey.
  I have been a long-time supporter of various line-item veto measures 
because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to 
reconcile spending priorities in the best interest of the nation. 
Recognizing that Congress has been unable or unwilling to seriously 
address our problems with special interest tax provisions and spending 
for members' pet projects, as last year's appropriations process 
attests, some form of additional veto authority should be given to the 
President. Otherwise, the President continues to have to approve items 
in bills which he doesn't support to approve those that he does.
  As my colleagues know, the Separate Enrollment Line Item Veto 
legislation we passed in 1995 in the Senate was ultimately changed in 
conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. The end 
product of those negotiations was an enhanced rescission line item veto 
process, giving the President the ability to strike items from bills 
after signing them into law. Because that approach was struck down by 
the Supreme Court, I believe the line item veto is an important enough 
fiscal tool that we ought to put forward other alternatives.
  The separate enrollment process contained in this bill presents few 
constitutional concerns. This process doesn't give the President the 
ability to strike items from bills he otherwise approves. This approach 
breaks down bills into their individual parts that are then passed 
again as separate bills, making sure each provision can then stand on 
its own merits.
  In closing, let me acknowledge that this line item veto legislation, 
like the previous experiment, won't solve all the nation's fiscal 
problems, but that it is a needed step if we are interested in pursuing 
good public and budget policy.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Robb to 
introduce the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. This 
Congress, I hope the Senate will finally dispense with political 
gamesmanship

[[Page 882]]

and enact a true line item veto. It is past time to restore 
responsibility to federal spending by granting the President the power 
to strike wasteful and unnecessary items from our budget.
  The bill we are introducing today is a ``separate enrollment'' line 
item veto. It provides that each spending or tax provision be enrolled 
as a separate bill, allowing the President to either sign or veto each 
of these smaller bills in accordance with the veto power expressly 
granted under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. This 
legislation is designed to allow the President to strike spending or 
tax items from the budget without violating the delicate separation of 
powers which exists under our Constitution. In contrast, the so-called 
``enhanced rescission'' line item veto--enacted in 1996 and struck down 
by the Supreme Court on June 25, 1998--represented a shift in the 
separation of powers. Under that approach, the President had the 
authority to sign a bill into law, then strike individual provisions 
and require a Congressional supermajority to override these 
rescissions. In doing so, the President was clearly performing a 
legislative function granted exclusively to Congress by the 
Constitution.
  When the Supreme Court announced its decision striking down the 1996 
line item veto, the White House and many in Congress clamored in the 
media about how disappointed they were. The truth is that no one was 
really surprised. In fact, many Senators--including myself--made 
statements in 1996 and voted against the bill because it was 
unconstitutional. The events surrounding the enactment of the 1996 law 
clearly show that politics was placed before policy. In 1995 our 
separate enrollment approach had received bipartisan support in the 
Senate, with 69 Senators voting for the measure. The ``enhanced 
rescission'' approach, on the other hand, received only 45 votes when 
considered in 1993, with several Senators raising constitutional 
objections during the debate. However, in an apparent attempt to put 
off meaningful reform in favor of Presidential politics, the ``enhanced 
rescission'' bill was resurrected in 1996 in an effort to score 
political points. Now, we have come full circle after the Court's 
decision. It is time to get serious and enact the same bill which 
received 69 votes in 1995.
  Mr. President, I am no stranger to this issue. As Governor of South 
Carolina, I saw first hand how effective the line item veto can be. I 
used it to cut millions of dollars in wasteful spending from the state 
budget, and in the process helped earn South Carolina the first AAA 
credit rating in the state's history. The Governors of 43 states now 
possess line item veto authority. I have been trying for years to bring 
this same approach to Washington. I have introduced or co-sponsored a 
separate enrollment line-item veto in every Congress since 1985. In 
that year, I co-sponsored Senator Mack Mattingly's separate enrollment 
bill, which received 58 votes in the Senate. In 1990, I offered a 
similar bill in the Senate Budget Committee, which passed the line item 
veto for the first time in history by a bipartisan vote of 13-6. In 
1993, after Senator Bradley came on board, we were again able to get a 
majority of 53 votes. Then, in 1995, support for the bill reached an 
all-time high when the bill finally passed the Senate with 69 votes.
  One needs to look no further than last year's end of the session 
debacle to see the need for the line item veto. Nearly an entire year's 
worth of legislation--including eight of the thirteen normal 
appropriations bills, an emergency spending bill, and a tax 
``extenders'' bill--was wrapped into a monstrosity entitled the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 1999. The time period between the drafting of the bill and its 
enactment was so short that Senators made statements on the floor that 
they did not even know the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, this 
type of omnibus appropriations has become common in recent years, and 
it prevents an obvious opportunity for abuse. Wasteful spending and tax 
items are included in these huge, hastily drafted bills, and the 
President is faced with a ``take it or leave it'' proposition. With the 
session winding down, he often is forced to ``take it,'' including 
items which are totally without merit. The line item veto would prevent 
this type of waste and irresponsibility by allowing each item to be 
considered separately.
  I urge my colleagues to support this line item veto bill with the 
same bi-partisan support it received in 1995 so that we may finally 
restore responsibility to our federal budget process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 140. A bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in 
the State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


           thomas cole national historic site designation act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which would 
place the home and studio of Thomas Cole under the care of the Greene 
County Historical Society as a National Historic Site. I am pleased 
Senator Schumer has agreed to cosponsor this bill. Thomas Cole founded 
the American artistic tradition known as the Hudson River School. He 
painted landscapes of the American wilderness as it never had been 
depicted, untamed and majestic, the way Americans saw it in the 1830s 
and 1840s as they moved west. His students and followers included 
Frederick Church, Alfred Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick 
Kennesett.
  No description of Cole's works would do them justice, but let me say 
that their moody, dramatic style and subject matter were in sharp 
contrast to the pastoral European landscapes that Americans previously 
had admired. The new country was just settled enough that some people 
had time and resources to devote to collecting art. Cole's new style 
coincided with this growing interest, to the benefit of both.
  Cole had begun his painting career in Manhattan, but one day took a 
steamboat up the Hudson for inspiration. It worked. The landscapes he 
saw set him on the artistic course that became his life's work. He 
eventually moved to a house up the river in Catskill. First he boarded; 
then he bought the house. He married and raised his family there. That 
house, known as Cedar Grove, remained in the Cole family until 1979, 
when it was put up for sale.
  The Cole house would be only the second site under the umbrella of 
the Park Service dedicated to interpreting the life and work of an 
American painter.
  Olana, Church's home, sits immediately across the Hudson, so we have 
the opportunity to provide visitors with two nearby destinations that 
show the inspiration for two of America's foremost nineteenth century 
painters. Visitors could walk, hike, or drive to the actual spots where 
masterpieces were painted and see the landscape much as it was then.
  I regret that none of Thomas Cole's work hang in the Capitol, 
although two works by Bierstadt can be found in the stairwell outside 
the Speaker's Lobby. Perhaps Cole's greatest work is the four-part 
Voyage of Life, an allegorical series that depicts man in the four 
stages of life. It can be found in the National Gallery, along with two 
other Cole paintings. Another work of Cole's that we would be advised 
to remember is The Course of Empire, which depicts the rise of a great 
civilization from the wilderness, and its return.
  Several years ago the first major Cole exhibition in decades was held 
at the National Museum of American Art. The exhibition was all the 
evidence needed of Cole's importance and the merit of adding his home 
to the list of National Historic Sites. I should add that this must 
happen soon. The house needs work, and will not endure many more 
winters in its present state.
  This legislation would authorize cooperative agreements under which 
the management of the Cole House would go to the Greene County 
Historical Society, which is entirely qualified for the job. The 
Society could enter into cooperative agreements with the National Park 
Service for the preservation and interpretation of the site.
  I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues support this legislation, 
and

[[Page 883]]

that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 140

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Thomas Cole National 
     Historic Site Designation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Hudson River school of landscape painting was 
     inspired by Thomas Cole and was characterized by a group of 
     19th century landscape artists who recorded and celebrated 
     the landscape and wilderness of the United States, 
     particularly in the Hudson River Valley region in the State 
     of New York;
       (2) Thomas Cole is recognized as the United States's most 
     prominent landscape and allegorical painter of the mid-19th 
     century;
       (3) located in Greene County, New York, the Thomas Cole 
     House, also known as Thomas Cole's Cedar Grove, is listed on 
     the National Register of Historic Places and has been 
     designated as a National Historic Landmark;
       (4) within a 15-mile radius of the Thomas Cole House, an 
     area that forms a key part of the rich cultural and natural 
     heritage of the Hudson River Valley region, significant 
     landscapes and scenes painted by Thomas Cole and other Hudson 
     River artists, such as Frederic Church, survive intact;
       (5) the State of New York has established the Hudson River 
     Valley Greenway to promote the preservation, public use, and 
     enjoyment of the natural and cultural resources of the Hudson 
     River Valley region; and
       (6) establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site 
     will provide--
       (A) opportunities for the illustration and interpretation 
     of cultural themes of the heritage of the United States; and
       (B) unique opportunities for education, public use, and 
     enjoyment.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret the Thomas Cole House and 
     studio for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the 
     people of the United States;
       (2) to help maintain the integrity of the setting in the 
     Hudson River Valley region that inspired artistic expression;
       (3) to coordinate the interpretive, preservation, and 
     recreational efforts of Federal, State, and other entities in 
     the Hudson Valley region in order to enhance opportunities 
     for education, public use, and enjoyment; and
       (4) to broaden understanding of the Hudson River Valley 
     region and its role in the history and culture of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Thomas Cole National Historic Site established by section 4.
       (2) Hudson river artist.--The term ``Hudson River artist'' 
     means an artist associated with the Hudson River school of 
     landscape painting.
       (3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management 
     plan developed under section 6(d).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Society.--The term ``Society'' means the Greene County 
     Historical Society of Greene County, New York, that owns the 
     Thomas Cole House, studio, and other property comprising the 
     historic site.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THOMAS COLE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established, as an affiliated 
     area of the National Park System, the Thomas Cole National 
     Historic Site in the State of New York.
       (b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     Thomas Cole House and studio, comprising approximately 3.4 
     acres, located at 218 Spring Street in the village of 
     Catskill, New York, as generally depicted on the boundary map 
     numbered TCH/80002, and dated March 1992.

     SEC. 5. RETENTION OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC 
                   SITE BY GREENE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

       Under a cooperative agreement entered into under section 
     6(b)(1), the Greene County Historical Society of Greene 
     County, New York, shall own, manage, and operate the historic 
     site.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Applicability of National Park System Laws.--Under a 
     cooperative agreement entered into under subsection (b)(1), 
     the historic site shall be administered by the Society in a 
     manner consistent with this Act and all laws generally 
     applicable to units of the National Park System, including--
       (1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
       (2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, 
     and antiquities of national significance, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) Assistance to society.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the Society--
       (A) to preserve the Thomas Cole House and other structures 
     in the historic site; and
       (B) to assist with education programs and research and 
     interpretation of the Thomas Cole House and associated 
     landscapes in the historic site.
       (2) Other assistance.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the State of New York, the 
     Society, the Thomas Cole Foundation, and other public and 
     private entities to--
       (A) further the purposes of this Act; and
       (B) develop, present, and fund art exhibits, resident 
     artist programs, and other appropriate activities related to 
     the preservation, interpretation, and use of the historic 
     site.
       (c) Artifacts and Property.--
       (1) Personal property generally.--The Secretary may acquire 
     personal property associated with, and appropriate for, the 
     interpretation of the historic site.
       (2) Works of art.--The Secretary may acquire works of art 
     associated with Thomas Cole and other Hudson River artists 
     for the purpose of display at the historic site.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2000, under a 
     cooperative agreement entered into under section 6(b)(1), the 
     Society, with the assistance of the Secretary, shall develop 
     a general management plan for the historic site.
       (2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall include 
     recommendations for regional wayside exhibits, to be carried 
     out through cooperative agreements with the State of New York 
     and other public and private entities.
       (3) Authority.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance 
     with section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
       (4) Submission of plan.--On the completion of the plan, the 
     Secretary shall provide a copy of the plan to--
       (A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 141. A bill to amend section 845 of title 18, United States Code, 
relating to explosive materials; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               legislation relating to explosive material

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
restricts those who can have access to black powder, the primary 
ingredient in pipe bombs. At present, there are no restrictions on 
those who wish to buy commercially manufactured black powder in 
quantities not to exceed 50 pounds solely for sporting or recreational 
purposes. Anyone, including a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, 
and a person adjudicated to be mentally defective, can buy commercially 
manufactured black powder in the above amounts with no questions asked. 
This is both wrong and dangerous. The same restrictions that apply to 
who can buy explosives should also apply to those who can lawfully buy 
commercially manufactured black powder.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 141

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.

       Section 845(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph 
     (6) as paragraph (5).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 142. A bill to amend section 842 of title 18, United States Code, 
relating to explosive materials transfers; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


  legislation to require that the federal government be notified when 
                        explosives are purchased

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would require vendors of explosives to notify the Federal Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.) when they sell such items. 
Now, there is no requirement that a seller notify the B.A.T.F. when a 
customer buys explosives. All that is required is that the

[[Page 884]]

buyer complete a federally generated form--5400.4--and that the seller 
keep it. There is nothing that requires the seller to send a copy of 
this form to the B.A.T.F.
  In all likelihood, any terrorist attach aimed at this country's 
infrastructure will use explosives to achieve its purpose. One key way 
to prevent an attack such as this is to have information about the 
individuals who are buying these items.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 142

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS 
                   TRANSFERS.

       Section 842(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, 
     in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``require,'' and inserting ``require (''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``) and transmitting a copy of each such record to 
     the Secretary''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 143. A bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to 
standardize the physical examinations that each boxer must take prior 
to each professional boxing match and to require a brain CAT scan every 
2 years as a requirement for the licensing of a boxer; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         The Professional Boxing Safety Act Amendments of 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, On January 3, 1999, Jerry Quarry, a 
perennial heavyweight boxing champion contender in the 1960's and 
1970's, died of pneumonia brought on by an advanced state of dementia 
pugilistica. He was 53. The list goes on: Sugar Ray Robinson, Archie 
Moore and Muhammad Ali are but a few examples. The Professional Boxing 
Safety Act of 1996 was an excellent step toward making professional 
boxing safer for its participants. Nevertheless, it contains several 
gaps.
  The two amendments I propose here today are aimed at protecting 
professional fighters by requiring more rigorous prefight physical 
examinations and by requiring a brain catscan before a boxer can renew 
his or her professional license.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 143

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Boxing Safety 
     Act Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF 
                   1996.

       (a) Standardized Physical Examinations.--Section 5(1) of 
     the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 
     6304(1)) is amended by inserting after ``examination'' the 
     following: ``, based on guidelines endorsed by the American 
     Medical Association, including a circulo-respiratory check 
     and a neurological examination,''.
       (b) CAT Scans.--Section 6(b)(2) of the Professional Boxing 
     Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6305(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``and, with 
     respect to such renewal, present proof from a physician that 
     such boxer has taken a computerized axial tomography (CAT) 
     scan within the 30-day period preceding that date on which 
     the renewal application is submitted and that no brain damage 
     from boxing has been detected''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 144. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to review the 
suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 
System of the Everglades expansion area; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


    REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL AS WILDERNESS

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since my days as Governor of the State of 
Florida, I have been a strong advocate of the protection and 
restoration of the Florida Everglades, the largest wetland and 
subtropical wilderness in the United States. This legislation will 
require the Secretary of the Interior to review the suitability for 
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System of the 
Everglades expansion area, a designation that will protect and preserve 
this area for the use of present and future generations. This action 
will be an important step towards maintaining the natural habitat of 
such endangered species as the Florida panther, the snail kite, and the 
cape sable seaside sparrow, as well as sustaining uninterupted water 
flow to the Everglades' aquifers, the main water source for the 
majority of the rapidly growing state of Florida. Over the last 100 
years, this ecosystem has been altered by man to provide for 
development, to manage water for irrigation, and to provide flood 
control in times of hurricanes. The review of this land for potential 
as wilderness may lead to greater future protection of the Everglades 
ecosystem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 144

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL 
                   AS WILDERNESS.

       (a) Definition of Addition.--In this section, the term 
     ``addition'' has the meaning given the term in section 101(c) 
     of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act 
     of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-5(c)).
       (b) Review and Report.--Subject to subsection (c), in 
     accordance with section 3 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1132), the Secretary of the Interior shall review and report 
     on the suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System of any part of the addition.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (b) shall take effect--
       (1) on the date of submission to Congress of the proposed 
     comprehensive plan to restore, preserve, and protect the 
     South Florida ecosystem required by section 528(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767); but
       (2) only if the plan does not specify that construction and 
     water storage are required in the addition (as determined by 
     the Secretary of the Interior).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 145. A bill to control crime by requiring mandatory victim 
restitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   Victim Restitution Enforcement Act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim 
Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999. I have long supported restitution 
for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires 
us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce 
restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes.
  I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution 
legislation in the 104th Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and 
very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly 
Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that 
victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism 
legislation.
  Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the 
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance 
the cause of justice for victims in federal criminal cases. The Act 
requires federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order 
these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It 
also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of 
restitution orders in federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in 
the federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution 
provisions in the federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am 
pleased that the 104th Congress was able to accomplish that.
  However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can 
actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with 
effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to 
them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources

[[Page 885]]

to pay off a restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled 
to go after whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect 
whatever they can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is 
not worth going after whatever payments they might get. That is what 
could happen under the current system, in which victims have to rely on 
government attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to 
pursue restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves 
the tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs.
  The victim restitution provisions enacted in the 104th Congress 
consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution 
with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid fines. Unless 
more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution orders more 
effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory restitution to be 
mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade ever paying their 
restitution and victims left without the ability to take action to 
enforce restitution orders.
  In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution 
Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also 
included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I 
introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced in the 104th 
Congress as Senate Bill S. 1504 and again in the 105th Congress as S. 
812, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of 
law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from 
criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater 
degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution 
payments.
  Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a 
civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected 
entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as 
directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments 
cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes 
restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding 
recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This 
provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay, 
but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets.
  This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution 
payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil 
collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can 
be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access 
to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. 
This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and 
prosecutors.
  My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have 
jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for five years, not 
including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is 
presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against 
a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the 
court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts 
should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to 
select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my 
bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted, 
where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to 
modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the 
defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in 
contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke 
probation or supervised release.
  My legislation will also give the courts power to impose pre-sentence 
restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases. 
This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior 
to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution 
provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases 
in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if 
the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill-
gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may 
be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is 
entered.
  The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to 
other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil 
actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate 
protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example, 
and place the burden on the government to show by a preponderance of 
the evidence that pre-sentence restraints are warranted.
  In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools 
with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution 
legislation in the 104th Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to 
make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take 
additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily 
enforceable.
  This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by 
the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask 
unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from 
those victims' rights organizations.
  I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower 
victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and 
which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be placed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This section provides that the act may be cited as the 
     ``Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999.''

     SECTION 2. PROCEDURES FOR ISSUANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   RESTITUTION ORDER.

       This section amends the Federal criminal code to revise 
     procedures for the issuance and enforcement of restitution 
     orders. The legislation directs the court to: (1) order the 
     probation service of the court to obtain and include in its 
     presentence report, or in a separate report, information 
     sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in 
     fashioning a restitution order (which shall include a 
     complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any 
     restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and 
     information relating to the economic circumstances of each 
     defendant); and (2) disclose to the defendant and the 
     attorney for the Government all portions of the report 
     pertaining to such matters.
       This section also makes specified provisions of the Federal 
     criminal code and Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure the only rules applicable to proceedings for the 
     issuance and enforcement of restitution orders. It authorizes 
     the court, upon application of the United States, to enter a 
     restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a 
     satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to 
     preserve the availability of property or assets necessary to 
     satisfy a criminal restitution order, if specified 
     circumstances apply.
       This legislation also sets forth provisions regarding: (1) 
     notice requirements; (2) evidence and information that the 
     court may consider at a hearing; (3) the use of temporary 
     restraining orders; (4) disclosure of financial information 
     regarding the defendant; (5) the use of consumer credit 
     reports; (6) timetables for the attorney for the United 
     States to provide the probation service of the court with 
     information available to the attorney, including matters 
     occurring before the grand jury relating to the identity of 
     the victims, the amount of loss, and financial matters 
     relating to the defendant.
       Further, this section directs the attorney for the 
     Government to provide notice to all victims. It authorizes: 
     (1) the court to limit the information to be provided or 
     sought by the probation service under specified 
     circumstances; (2) a victim who objects to any information 
     provided to the probation service by the attorney for the 
     United States to file a separate affidavit with the court; 
     and (3) the court to require additional documentation or hear 
     testimony after reviewing the report of the probation 
     service. Provides for the privacy of records filed and 
     testimony heard and permits records to be filed or testimony 
     to be heard in camera.
       This legislation also establishes procedures regarding the 
     court's ascertaining of the victims' losses. It permits the 
     court to refer any issue arising in connection with a 
     proposed restitution order to a magistrate or special master 
     for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to 
     disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue 
     by the court. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) 
     consideration of compensation for losses from insurance or 
     other sources; and (2) the burden of proof.

[[Page 886]]

       The bill directs the court to order restitution to each 
     victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as 
     determined by the court without consideration of the 
     defendant's economic circumstances. It sets forth provisions 
     regarding situations where the amount of the loss is not 
     reasonably ascertainable, and where there is more than one 
     defendant. The bill also specifies that no victim shall be 
     required to participate in any phase of a restitution order.
       This legislation requires the defendant to notify the court 
     and the Attorney General of any material change in the 
     defendant's economic circumstances that might affect the 
     defendant's ability to pay restitution. Authorizes the court 
     to adjust the payment schedule.
       It also sets forth provisions regarding: (1) court 
     retention of jurisdiction over criminal restitution 
     judgments; and (2) enforcement of restitution orders. 
     Further, this section specifies that: (1) a conviction of a 
     defendant for an offense giving rise to restitution shall 
     estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of 
     that offense in any subsequent Federal civil proceeding or 
     State civil proceeding, regardless of any State law 
     precluding estoppel for a lack of mutuality; and (2) the 
     victim, in such subsequent proceeding, shall not be precluded 
     from establishing a loss that is greater than that determined 
     by the court in the earlier criminal proceeding.

     SECTION 3. CIVIL REMEDIES

       This section adds restitution to a provision governing the 
     post-sentence administration of fines. Provides that an order 
     of restitution shall operate as a lien in favor of the United 
     States for its benefit or for the benefit of any non-federal 
     victims against all property belonging to the defendant. 
     Authorizes the court, in enforcing a restitution order, to 
     order jointly owned property divided and sold, subject to 
     specified requirements.

     SECTION 4. FINES

       Species that a defendant shall not incur any criminal 
     penalty for failure to make a payment on a fine, special 
     assessment, restitution, or cost because of the defendant's 
     indigency.

     SECTION 5. RESENTENCING

       This section authorizes the court, where a defendant 
     knowingly fails to pay a delinquent fine, to increase the 
     defendant's sentence to any sentence that might originally 
     have been imposed under the applicable statute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Grams, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 146. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to 
penalties for crimes involving cocaine, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the powder cocaine sentencing act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999.'' This legislation would toughen federal policy 
toward powder cocaine dealers by reducing from 500 to 50 grams the 
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing in 
order to receive a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.
  I am convinced, Mr. President, that we need tougher sentences for 
powder cocaine dealers so that we may protect our kids from drugs and 
our neighborhoods from the violence and social breakdown that accompany 
drug trafficking.
  We have seen a disturbing trend in recent years, a reversal, really, 
of the decade long progress we enjoyed in the war on drugs. For 
example, over the last six years the percentage of high school seniors 
admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than 
half. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use means 
increased danger of every social pathology of which we know. It must 
stop.
  Ironically, at the same time that we are learning the disturbing news 
about overall drug use among teens, we also are finding heartening news 
in our war on violent crime. The F.B.I. now reports that, since 1991, 
the number of homicides committed in the United States has dropped by 
31 percent. Also since 1991, the number of robberies has fallen 32 
percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, robberies fell 
a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone.
  This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement 
among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in 
violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and 
the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic. The New York 
Times recently reported on a conference of criminologists held in New 
Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed that the rise and fall in 
violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the rise 
and fall of the crack epidemic.
  At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent 
``Monitoring the Future'' Study done by the University of Michigan, 
which tracks drug use and attitudes by teenagers, showed an increase in 
the use of both crack and powder cocaine this year. This is in contrast 
to its finding that the use of other drugs by kids may finally be 
leveling off, albeit at unacceptably high levels.
  Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, in last year's Ten Year 
Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration proposed 
making crack sentences 5 times more lenient than they are today. Why? 
The Administration say we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because 
they are too tough when compared to sentences for powder cocaine 
dealers. And it is true that it does not make sense for people higher 
on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. 
But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school 
yards and playgrounds--is not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly 
addictive. Tough crack sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn 
in their superiors in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences 
will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them 
less effective at protecting our children and our neighborhoods.
  The Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act rests on the conviction that there 
is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences more in 
line. First, it rejects any proposal to lower sentences for crack 
dealers. Second, it makes sentences for powder cocaine dealers a good 
deal tougher than they are today.
  Mr. President, this legislation will reduce the differential between 
the amount of powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory 
minimum sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by 
the Administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal, not 
by making crack dealer sentences more lenient, but rather by toughening 
sentences for powder cocaine dealers.
  At this crucial time we may be making real progress in winning the 
war on violent crime in part because we have sent the message that 
crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come down 
very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same time our 
kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more exposed than 
any of us can probably really imagine. In light of these two trends, it 
would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think that the 
cost of doing business is going down. As important, Mr. President, it 
will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging our children from 
using drugs if they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of 
drug dealers.
  I ask my colleagues to send a strong message to drug dealers and to 
our kids, the message that drugs are dangerous and illegal, and those 
who sell them will not be tolerated. This legislation will send this 
message, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 146

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE POWDER.

       (a) Amendment of Controlled Substances Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and inserting ``500 
     grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances

[[Page 887]]

     Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``500 
     grams'' and inserting ``50 grams''.
       (b) Amendment of Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 1010(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``500 grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 1010(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``500 grams'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams''.
       (c) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant to 
     section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by this 
     section.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999'' sponsored by Senator Spence Abraham of 
Michigan. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important 
legislation that will toughen federal policy toward powder cocaine 
dealers.
  As we begin the legislative business of the Senate this year, we must 
strengthen our efforts to stop illegal drug use and drug-related crime 
and violence. We must fulfill our moral obligation to communicate the 
dangers and consequences of illegal drug use. Continuing our fight 
against the threat of drug abuse is one of the most important 
contributions the 106th Congress can make toward providing a promising 
future for the young people of America.
  Under current law, a dealer must distribute 500 grams of powder 
cocaine to qualify for a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and 
distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine for that offense. These sentencing 
guidelines result in a 100-to-1 quantity ratio between powder and more 
severe crack cocaine distribution sentences. This disparity has caused 
a great deal of concern among members of Congress and the 
administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration fails to see 
the dangers in changing the federal crack cocaine distribution law.
  During the 104th Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended 
a lower threshold under which a convicted person may receive a 5-year 
mandatory sentence in cases involving the distribution of crack 
cocaine. Through the leadership of Senator Abraham, Congress 
overwhelmingly passed legislation which rejected the Sentencing 
Commission's proposal. At the signing ceremony for this legislation, 
President Clinton expressed the strong message its enactment would send 
to our Nation and those who choose to deal drugs throughout our 
communities.
  President Clinton remarked,

       We have to send a constant message to our children that 
     drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you 
     your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. I 
     am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea 
     that the cost of doing business is going down.

  Regrettably, the Clinton administration continues to promote a 
federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses that fails to 
recognize the dangerous and addictive nature of this illegal substance 
and its impact upon violent crime throughout our communities. In an 
April 1997 report to Congress, the Sentencing Commission unanimously 
recommended an increase in the mandatory minimum trigger for the 
distribution of crack cocaine.
  I share the views expressed by the administration and community 
groups in my home state of Minnesota that the current penalty disparity 
in cocaine sentencing should be addressed. However, I disagree with the 
ill-advised manner in which the administration seeks to achieve this 
goal by making the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine 
dealers at least five times more lenient than they are today.
  Mr. President, the legislation offered today by Senator Abraham 
represents a fair and effective approach toward federal cocaine 
sentencing policy. Rather than make federal crack cocaine sentences 
more lenient, the Abraham bill would reduce from 500 to 50 grams the 
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing 
before receiving a mandatory 5-year sentence. This legislation would 
adjust the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio to 10-to-1 by toughening 
powder cocaine sentences without reducing crack cocaine sentences.
  By February 1, Congress will receive a National Drug Control Strategy 
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy which will contain 
goals for reducing drug abuse in the United States. As part of this 
plan, I am hopeful that National Drug Control Policy Director Barry 
McCaffrey will speak out forcefully against any proposal to make 
sentences for a person who is convicted of dealing crack cocaine more 
lenient. Punishing drug dealers who prey upon the innocence of our 
children should be a critical component of our nation's drug strategy.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the ``Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999'' and reject lower federal crack sentences. We 
should exercise greater oversight of federal sentencing policy for 
cocaine offenses. Passage of this legislation will help give greater 
protection to Americans from drugs by keeping offenders off the streets 
for longer periods of time.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S. 147. A bill to provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by 
maintaining Federal average fuel economy standards applicable to 
automobiles in effect at current levels until changed by law, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                corporate average fuel economy standards

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with Senators Levin, Ashcroft, and DeWine that would freeze the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--known as CAFE--at current 
levels unless changed by Congress.
  This issue is attracting an increased amount of attention as 
automobile manufacturers continue to increase car and light truck 
efficiency and as Americans begin to understand the consequences of 
increased fuel economy standards: less consumer choice, more dangerous 
vehicles and reduced competitiveness for domestic automobile 
manufacturers. Perhaps, Mr. President, some of these repercussions 
could be easier to accept if the supposed benefits of increased CAFE 
standards were ever realized, but this has not occurred. In the two 
decades since CAFE standards were first mandated, this Nation's oil 
imports have grown to account for nearly half our annual consumption 
and the average number of miles driven by Americans has increased.
  Mr. President, last session 15 Senators from both sides of the aisle 
joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Given the importance of the 
automobile industry to the continued economic health of the country, 
the preference for increased capacity that American consumers have 
demonstrated and the producers' continuing trend toward more efficient 
engines, it is time for the setting of CAFE standards to once again 
reside with elected officials.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 147

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the average 
     fuel economy standards established (whether directly or 
     indirectly) under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code, prior to the date of enactment of this Act for 
     automobiles (as that term is defined in section 32901 of 
     title 49, United States Code) that are in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, shall apply without 
     amendment, change, or other modification of any kind (whether 
     direct or indirect) for--
       (1) the model years specified in the regulations;
       (2) the applicable automobiles specified in the regulations 
     last promulgated for such automobiles; and

[[Page 888]]

       (3) each model year thereafter;

     until chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     specifically amended to authorize an amendment, change, or 
     other modification to such standards or is otherwise modified 
     or superseded by law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr Daschle, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hatch, 
        and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 148. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
a program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical 
migratory birds; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                       migratory bird protection

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999.'' This 
legislation, which I am introducing today with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Chafee, is designed to protect 
over 90 endangered species of bird spending certain seasons in the 
United States and other seasons in other nations of the Western 
Hemisphere. This is actually the second time Senator Daschle and I have 
introduced this bill. Last year, after receiving considerable support 
from the environmental community, this legislation passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, time ran out for equal consideration 
in the House. Nevertheless, we are back again with renewed 
determination and I believe the effort in the 106th Congress will prove 
successful.
  Every year, Mr. President, approximately 25 million Americans travel 
to observe birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds 
at home. Bird-watching is a source of real pleasure to many Americans, 
as well as a source of important revenue to states, like my own state 
of Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes of natural beauty. 
Bird watching and feeding generates fully $20 billion every year in 
revenue across America.
  Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased 
popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent 
in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent 
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming 
and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby 
preventing crop failures and infestations.
  Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations, 
many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as 
endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are 
of high conservation concern. In my own state we are working to bring 
the Kirtland's Warbler back from the brink of extinction. In recent 
years, the population of this distinctive bird has been estimated at 
approximately 200 nesting pairs. That number has recently increased to 
an estimated 800 nesting pairs, but this entire species spends half of 
the year in the Bahamas. Therefore, the significant efforts made by 
Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and concerned residents will 
not be enough to save this bird if its winter habitat is degraded or 
destroyed. Not surprisingly, the primary reason for most declines is 
the loss of bird habitat.
  This situation is not unique, among bird watchers' favorites, many 
neotropical birds are endangered or of high conservation concern. And 
several of the most popular neotropical species, including bluebirds, 
robins, goldfinches and orioles, migrate to and from the Caribbean and 
Latin America.
  Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of 
international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards 
at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover 
areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove 
successful.
  That is why Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I have introduced the 
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.'' This legislation will 
protect bird habitats across international boundaries by establishing 
partnerships between the business community, nongovernmental 
organizations and foreign nations. By teaming businesses with 
international organizations concerned to protect the environment we can 
combine capital with know-how. By partnering these entities with local 
organizations in countries where bird habitat is endangered we can see 
to it that local people receive the training they need to preserve this 
habitat and maintain this critical natural resource.
  This act establishes a three year demonstration project providing $8 
million each year to help establish programs in the United States, 
Latin America and the Caribbean. The greater portion of these funds 
will be focused outside the U.S. Approved programs will manage and 
conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Those eligible to 
participate will include national and international nongovernmental 
organizations and business interest, as well as U.S. government 
entities.
  The key to this act is cooperation among nongovernmental 
organizations. The federal share of each project's cost is never to 
exceed 33 percent. For grants awarded outside the U.S., the nonfederal 
match can be made with in-kind contributions. This will encourage 
volunteerism and local interest in communities that lack the financial 
resource to contribute currency. Since domestic organizations and 
communities are more financially secure, the matching portion of grants 
awarded within the U.S. will be required in cash.
  The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current 
programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management 
approach, will prove significantly more cost effective. In addition, 
this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive 
bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered 
oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed 
attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little 
attention in the area of environmental degradation.
  This legislation has the support of the National Audubon Society, the 
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. These 
organizations agree with Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I that, by 
establishing partnerships between business, government and 
nongovernmental organizations both here and abroad we can greatly 
enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 148

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird 
     Conservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) of the nearly 800 bird species known to occur in the 
     United States, approximately 500 migrate among countries, and 
     the large majority of those species, the neotropical 
     migrants, winter in Latin America and the Caribbean;
       (2) neotropical migratory bird species provide invaluable 
     environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits 
     to the United States, as well as to the Western Hemisphere;
       (3)(A) many neotropical migratory bird populations, once 
     considered common, are in decline, and some have declined to 
     the point that their long-term survival in the wild is in 
     jeopardy; and
       (B) the primary reason for the decline in the populations 
     of those species is habitat loss and degradation (including 
     pollution and contamination) across the species' range; and
       (4)(A) because neotropical migratory birds range across 
     numerous international borders each year, their conservation 
     requires the commitment and effort of all countries along 
     their migration routes; and
       (B) although numerous initiatives exist to conserve 
     migratory birds and their habitat, those initiatives can be 
     significantly strengthened and enhanced by increased 
     coordination.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical 
     migratory birds;
       (2) to assist in the conservation of neotropical migratory 
     birds by supporting conservation initiatives in the United 
     States, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and
       (3) to provide financial resources and to foster 
     international cooperation for those initiatives.

[[Page 889]]



     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Neotropical 
     Migratory Bird Conservation Account established by section 
     9(a).
       (2) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species of 
     neotropical migratory bird to the point at which there are 
     sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the long-term 
     viability of the species, including--
       (A) protection and management of neotropical migratory bird 
     populations;
       (B) maintenance, management, protection, and restoration of 
     neotropical migratory bird habitat;
       (C) research and monitoring;
       (D) law enforcement; and
       (E) community outreach and education.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     provide financial assistance for projects to promote the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
       (b) Project Applicants.--A project proposal may be 
     submitted by--
       (1) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, 
     association, or other private entity;
       (2) an officer, employee, agent, department, or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State, 
     municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any 
     foreign government;
       (3) a State, municipality, or political subdivision of a 
     State;
       (4) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States or of any foreign country; and
       (5) an international organization (as defined in section 1 
     of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 
     288)).
       (c) Project Proposals.--To be considered for financial 
     assistance for a project under this Act, an applicant shall 
     submit a project proposal that--
       (1) includes--
       (A) the name of the individual responsible for the project;
       (B) a succinct statement of the purposes of the project;
       (C) a description of the qualifications of individuals 
     conducting the project; and
       (D) an estimate of the funds and time necessary to complete 
     the project, including sources and amounts of matching funds;
       (2) demonstrates that the project will enhance the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory bird species in Latin 
     America, the Caribbean, or the United States;
       (3) includes mechanisms to ensure adequate local public 
     participation in project development and implementation;
       (4) contains assurances that the project will be 
     implemented in consultation with relevant wildlife management 
     authorities and other appropriate government officials with 
     jurisdiction over the resources addressed by the project;
       (5) demonstrates sensitivity to local historic and cultural 
     resources and complies with applicable laws;
       (6) describes how the project will promote sustainable, 
     effective, long-term programs to conserve neotropical 
     migratory birds; and
       (7) provides any other information that the Secretary 
     considers to be necessary for evaluating the proposal.
       (d) Project Reporting.--Each recipient of assistance for a 
     project under this Act shall submit to the Secretary such 
     periodic reports as the Secretary considers to be necessary. 
     Each report shall include all information required by the 
     Secretary for evaluating the progress and outcome of the 
     project.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of each 
     project shall be not greater than 33 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Source.--The non-Federal share required to be paid for 
     a project shall not be derived from any Federal grant 
     program.
       (B) Form of payment.--
       (i) Projects in the united states.--The non-Federal share 
     required to be paid for a project carried out in the United 
     States shall be paid in cash.
       (ii) Projects in foreign countries.--The non-Federal share 
     required to be paid for a project carried out in a foreign 
     country may be paid in cash or in kind.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (1) develop guidelines for the solicitation of proposals 
     for projects eligible for financial assistance under section 
     5;
       (2) encourage submission of proposals for projects eligible 
     for financial assistance under section 5, particularly 
     proposals from relevant wildlife management authorities;
       (3) select proposals for financial assistance that satisfy 
     the requirements of section 5, giving preference to proposals 
     that address conservation needs not adequately addressed by 
     existing efforts and that are supported by relevant wildlife 
     management authorities; and
       (4) generally implement this Act in accordance with its 
     purposes.

     SEC. 7. COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) support and coordinate existing efforts to conserve 
     neotropical migratory bird species, through--
       (A) facilitating meetings among persons involved in such 
     efforts;
       (B) promoting the exchange of information among such 
     persons;
       (C) developing and entering into agreements with other 
     Federal agencies, foreign, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, and nongovernmental organizations; and
       (D) conducting such other activities as the Secretary 
     considers to be appropriate; and
       (2) coordinate activities and projects under this Act with 
     existing efforts in order to enhance conservation of 
     neotropical migratory bird species.
       (b) Advisory Group.--
       (1) In general.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of 
     individuals representing public and private organizations 
     actively involved in the conservation of neotropical 
     migratory birds.
       (2) Public participation.--
       (A) Meetings.--The advisory group shall--
       (i) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open 
     to the public; and
       (ii) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for 
     interested persons to present oral or written statements 
     concerning items on the agenda.
       (B) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public 
     timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
       (C) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group 
     shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to 
     the public.
       (3) Exemption from federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the advisory group.

     SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results and effectiveness of the 
     program carried out under this Act, including recommendations 
     concerning how the Act might be improved and whether the 
     program should be continued.

     SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a 
     separate account to be known as the ``Neotropical Migratory 
     Bird Conservation Account'', which shall consist of amounts 
     deposited into the Account by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     under subsection (b).
       (b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit into the Account--
       (1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form of 
     donations under subsection (d); and
       (2) other amounts appropriated to the Account.
       (c) Use.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may use amounts in the Account, without further Act of 
     appropriation, to carry out this Act.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--Of amounts in the Account 
     available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not 
     more than 6 percent to pay the administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may 
     accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts 
     received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into 
     the Account.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account to 
     carry out this Act $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2003, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not less than 50 percent of the amounts made available for 
     each fiscal year shall be expended for projects carried out 
     outside the United States.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my 
colleagues to introduce the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
Act.
  First, let me commend my colleague, Senator Abraham, for all of his 
work to develop this legislation. This bill addresses some of the 
critical threats to wildlife habitat and species diversity and 
demonstrates his commitment, which I strongly share, to solving the 
many challenges we face in this regard.
  The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act will help to ensure 
that some of our most valuable and beautiful species of birds--those 
that most of us take for granted, including bluebirds, goldfinches, 
robins and orioles--may overcome the challenges posed by habitat 
destruction and thrive for generations to come. It is not widely 
recognized that many North American bird species once considered common 
are in decline. In fact, a total of 90 species of migratory birds are 
listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, and another 
124 species are considered to be of high conservation concern.

[[Page 890]]

  The main cause of this decline is the loss of critical habitat 
throughout our hemisphere. Because these birds range across 
international borders, it is essential that we work with nations in 
Latin America and the Caribbean to establish protected stopover areas 
during their emigrations. This bill achieves that goal by fostering 
partnerships between businesses, nongovernmental organizations and 
other nations to bring together the capital and expertise needed to 
preserve habitat throughout our hemisphere.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation. It has been endorsed by the National Audubon Society, the 
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. I believe 
that it will substantially improve upon our ability to maintain 
critical habitat in our hemisphere and help to halt the decline of 
these important species.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Neotropical 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Abraham. 
The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for 
projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in 
the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. An identical bill, 
which I also cosponsored, was approved by the Senate during the last 
Congress, but failed in the House for reasons unrelated to the bill.
  Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between 
their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the 
Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or 
New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the 
biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of 
the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America.
  The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound. 
These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts, 
particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin 
America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined 
generally in recent years.
  While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species 
and their habitat, they generally focus on specific groups of migratory 
birds or specific regions in the Americas. There is a need for a more 
comprehensive program to address the varied and significant threats 
facing the numerous species of migratory birds across their range.
  Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among the existing 
programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among 
them. A broader, more holistic approach would bolster existing 
conservation efforts and programs, fill the gaps between these 
programs, and promote new initiatives.
  The bill we are introducing today encompasses this new approach. It 
mandates a program to promote voluntary, collaborative partnerships 
among Federal, State, and private organizations. The Federal share can 
be no more than 33 percent. The non-Federal share for projects in the 
U.S. must be paid in cash, while in projects outside the U.S., the non-
Federal share may be entirely in-kind contributions. The Secretary of 
the Interior may establish an advisory group to assist in implementing 
the legislation. The success of this initiative will depend on close 
coordination with public and private organizations involved in the 
conservation of migratory birds. The bill authorizes up to $8 million 
annually for appropriations, of which no less than 50 percent can be 
spent for projects outside the U.S.
  I believe that this bill is a much needed initiative that will fill a 
great void in conservation of our nation's wildlife. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S 149. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the 
transfer of a handgun; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     child safety lock act of 1999

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act 
of 1999, along with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Boxer and Durbin. Our 
bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless 
tragedies that result when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come 
within the reach of children.
  Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in firearms 
accidents, and every year 1,500 more children use firearms to commit 
suicide. Additionally, about 7,000 violent juvenile crimes are 
committed annually with guns which children take from their own homes. 
Safety locks can be effective in preventing at least some of these 
incidents.
  The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster because guns too often 
are not being properly stored away from children. Nearly 100 million 
privately-owned firearms are stored unlocked, with 22 million of these 
guns left unlocked and loaded; twenty-four percent of children between 
the ages of 10 and 17 say that they can gain access to a gun in their 
home; and the Centers for Disease Control estimate that almost 1.2 
million elementary school-aged children return from school to a home 
where there is no adult supervision, but at least one firearm.
  That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable.
  Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple, 
effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device--
or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in 
form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun 
trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of 
thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from 
unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store 
for less than 10 dollars.
  This measure gained momentum last Congress, falling short by just one 
vote in the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, in part as a result of our 
proposal, a majority of the largest handgun manufacturers in the United 
States agreed to voluntarily include safety locks with each handgun 
they manufacture. Despite this unprecedented voluntary step, though, 
our legislation is still needed. Here's why: because some manufacturers 
appear to be dragging their feet--an October 1998 study indicated that 
eighty percent of the handgun makers who signed onto the voluntary 
agreement were not yet providing safety locks. And even if they do 
comply, many handguns would likely still not be covered because too 
many other manufacturers have refused to sign onto our agreement.
  Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety 
locks are provided with all handguns, and to keep the pressure on 
handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children 
by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that 
childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no 
less vigilant when it comes to gun safety.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 149

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) The term `locking device' means a device or locking 
     mechanism--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a 
     key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically 
     operated combination lock, is designed to prevent the firearm 
     from being discharged without first deactivating or removing 
     the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically, 
     or electromechanically operated combination lock;
       ``(ii) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is 
     designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to

[[Page 891]]

     unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm; or
       ``(iii) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other 
     device that is designed to store a firearm and that is 
     designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a 
     combination, or other similar means; and
       ``(B) that is approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer 
     for use on the handgun with which the device or locking 
     mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a firearm; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a firearm for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off 
     duty).''.
       (2) Effective date.--Section 922(y) of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any firearms dealer or 
     any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce 
     this section.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(y) of that title.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 150. A bill to the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert 
Miftakhov; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a measure to bring 
critically needed relief to Marina Khalina and her son, Albert 
Miftakhov, who suffers from cerebral palsy. Marina and Albert are 
Russian immigrants who have made a new home for themselves in the state 
of Oregon. They love their new life in America, but they face 
deportation unless Congress steps in and helps them become citizens of 
this country.
  Marina and Albert have been valuable members of their community in 
Oregon and would make model citizens. They are both people of 
exceptional moral character. Neither has been arrested or convicted of 
any crime. Although Albert often has had to miss school for medical 
operations, therapy, and other treatments, he consistently has been a 
good student. Marina has worked tirelessly in the United States to 
support her family and to cover her son's staggering medical costs, 
which will include additional surgery in the future. Through hard work, 
determination, and courage, Marina has made sure that Albert receives 
the medical care he requires.
  Forcibly removing them and sending them back to Russia would result 
in extreme hardship for both of them and would make it virtually 
impossible for Albert to receive proper medical attention. Albert would 
be unable to lead a normal life due to the current inability of Russian 
society to understand and accommodate disabled persons. Even the most 
basic medical treatment, surgical intervention and physical therapy 
would be either unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain in Russia.
  Although life has not been easy for Marina and Albert, they have both 
shown bravery in the face of adversity. This bill will allow Marina and 
Albert to stay in the United States so that Albert can receive the care 
he needs to lead a normal life. I urge you to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 151. A bill to amend the International Maritime Satellite 
Telecommunications Act to ensure the continuing provision of certain 
global satellite safety services after the privatization of the 
business operations of the International Mobile Satellite Organization, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


   International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act Amendments

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
authorize continued U.S. participation in the International Mobile 
Satellite Organization, currently known as ``Inmarsat'', during and 
after its restructuring, scheduled to take place April 1. The United 
States is currently a member of this organization, but its structure 
and functions are slated for significant reform. Rather than actually 
owning and operating mobile satellite telecommunications facilities, 
the intergovernmental institution will retain the much more limited 
role of overseeing the provision of global maritime distress and safety 
services, ensuring that this important function is carried out properly 
and effectively under contract. U.S. participation in the 
organization--which will keep the same name but change its acronym to 
``IMSO''--will not require a U.S. financial contribution and will not 
impose any new legal obligations upon the U.S. government. 
Privatization of Inmarsat's commercial satellite business is an 
objective broadly shared by the legislative and executive branches, 
American businesses, COMSAT, which is the U.S. signatory entity, and 
the international community.
  To give some brief background, Inmarsat was established in 1979 to 
serve the global maritime industry by developing satellite 
communications for ship management and distress and safety 
applications. Over the past 20 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in 
terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now 
counts 85 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and 
aeronautical communications.
  Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Assembly of Parties and the Inmarsat 
Council, have reached an agreement to restructure the organization, a 
move that has been strongly supported and encouraged by the United 
States. This restructuring will shift Inmarsat's commercial activities 
out of the intergovernmental organization and into a broadly-owned 
public corporation by next spring. The new corporation will acquire all 
of Inmarsat's operational assets, including its satellites, and will 
assume all of Inmarsat's operational functions. All that will remain of 
the intergovernmental institution is a scaled-down secretariat with a 
small staff to ensure that the new corporation continues to meet 
certain public service obligations, such as the Global Maritime 
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). It is important to U.S. interests 
that we participate in the oversight of this function, as well as be 
fully represented in the organization throughout the process of 
privatization.
  The legislation I am introducing will enable a smooth transition to 
the new

[[Page 892]]

structure. It contains two major provisions. First, it authorizes the 
President to maintain U.S. membership in IMSO after restructuring to 
ensure the continued provision of global maritime distress and safety 
satellite communications services. Second, it repeals those provisions 
of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act that 
will be rendered obsolete by the restructuring of Inmarsat, including 
all those relating to COMSAT's role as the United States' signatory. 
The bill's provisions will take effect on the date that Inmarsat 
transfers its commercial operations to the new corporation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 151

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONTINUING PROVISION OF GLOBAL SATELLITE SAFETY 
                   SERVICES AFTER PRIVATIZATION OF BUSINESS 
                   OPERATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE 
                   ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Authority.--The International Maritime Satellite 
     Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. 751 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:


  ``global satellite safety services after privatization of business 
                         operations of inmarsat

       ``Sec. 506. In order to ensure the continued provision of 
     global maritime distress and safety satellite 
     telecommunications services after the privatization of the 
     business operations of INMARSAT, the President may maintain 
     on behalf of the United States membership in the 
     International Mobile Satellite Organization.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--
       (1) Repeal.--That Act is further amended by striking 
     sections 502, 503, 504, and 505 (47 U.S.C. 751, 752, 753, and 
     757).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date on which the International 
     Mobile Satellite Organization ceases to operate directly a 
     global mobile satellite system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 152. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax 
and registration requirements on importers and manufacturers of handgun 
ammunition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                Real Cost of Destruction Ammunition Act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 153. A bill to prohibit the use of certain ammunition, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


             Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 154. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 155. A bill to provide for the collection and dissemination of 
information on injuries, death, and family dissolution due to bullet-
related violence, to require the keeping of records with respect to 
dispositions of ammunition, and to increase taxes on certain bullets; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                   Violent Crime Control Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 156. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber 
and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                  Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax 9 
millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets; to the Committee on 
Finance.


              Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 158. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the 
manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing 
police body armor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of 
bills aimed at curtailing gun related violence, one of the leading 
causes of death in this country. These bills launch a two-prong 
assault. The first seeks to outlaw certain types of ammunition that 
have no purpose other than killing people. The second imposes heavy 
taxes on these same deadly categories by making them prohibitively 
expensive. Similarly, I am proposing that we commission an 
epidemiological study on bullet-related violence in this country and 
that we enhance the safety of this nation's police officers by 
promulgating performance standards for armor piercing ammunition.
  My first two bills are called the Destructive Ammunition Prohibition 
Act of 1999 and the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act of 1999.
  Some of my colleagues may remember the Black Talon. It is a hollow-
tipped bullet, singular among handgun ammunition in its capacity for 
destruction. Upon impact with human tissue, the bullet produces razor-
sharp radial petals that produce a devastating wound. It is the very 
same bullet that a crazed gunman fired at unsuspecting passengers on a 
Long Island Railroad train in December 1993, killing the husband of now 
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and injuring her son. That same month, 
it was also used in the shooting of Officer Jason E. White of the 
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, just 15 blocks 
from the Capitol.
  I first learned of the Black Talon in a letter I received from Dr. 
E.J. Gallagher, director of Emergency Medicine at Albert Einstein 
College of Medicine at the Municipal Hospital Trauma Center in the 
Bronx. Dr. Gallagher wrote that he has never seen a more lethal 
projectile. On November 3, 1993, I introduced a bill to tax the Black 
Talon at 10,000 percent. Nineteen days later, Olin Corp., the 
manufacturer of the Black Talon, announced that it would withdraw sale 
of the bullet to the general public. Unfortunately, the 103rd Congress 
came to a close without the bill's having won passage.
  As a result, there is nothing in law to prevent the reintroduction of 
this pernicious bullet, nor is there any existing impediment to the 
sale of similar rounds that might be produced by another manufacturer. 
So today I reintroduce the bill to tax the Black Talon as well as a 
bill to prohibit the sale of the Black Talon to the public. Both bills 
would apply to any bullet with the same physical characteristics as the 
Black Talon.
  It has been estimated that the cost of hospital services for treating 
bullet-related injuries is $1 billion per year, with the total cost to 
the economy of such injuries approximately $14 billion. We can ill 
afford further increases in this number, but this would surely be the 
result if bullets with the destructive capacity of the Black Talon are 
allowed onto the streets.
   Mr. President, despite the fact that the national crime rate has 
decreased in recent months, the number of deaths and injuries caused by 
bullet wounds is still at an unconscionable level. It is time we take 
meaningful steps to put an end to the massacres that occur daily as a 
result of gun violence. How better a beginning than to go after the 
most insidious culprits of this violence? I urge my colleagues to 
support these measures and to prevent these bullets from appearing on 
the market.
  My third measure, the Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999, 
introduces a measure to improve our information about the regulation 
and criminal use of ammunition and to prevent the irresponsible 
production of ammunition. This bill has three components. First, it 
would require importers and manufacturers of ammunition to keep records 
and submit an annual report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition, including the amount, 
caliber and type of ammunition imported or manufactured. Second, it

[[Page 893]]

would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study of ammunition use and 
make recommendations on the efficacy of reducing crime by restricting 
access to ammunition. Finally, it would amend title 18 of the United 
States Code to raise the application fee for a license to manufacture 
certain calibers of ammunition.
  While there are enough handguns in circulation to last well into the 
22nd century, there is perhaps only a 4-year supply of ammunition. But 
how much of what kind of ammunition? Where does it come from? Where 
does it go? There are currently no reporting requirements for 
manufacturers or importers of ammunition; earlier reporting 
requirements were repealed in 1986. The Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Reports, based on information 
provided by local law enforcement agencies, does not record the 
caliber, type, or quantity of ammunition used in crime. In short, our 
data base is woefully inadequate.
  I supported the Brady law, which requires a waiting period before the 
purchase of a handgun, and the recent ban on semi-automatic weapons. 
But while the debate over gun control continues, I offer another 
alternative: Ammunition control. After all, as I have said before, guns 
do not kill people; bullets do.
  Ammunition control is not a new idea. In 1982 Phil Caruso of the New 
York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association asked me to do something 
about armor-piercing bullets. Jacketed in tungsten or other materials, 
these rounds could penetrate four police flak jackets and five Los 
Angeles County telephone books. They have no sporting value. I 
introduced legislation, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, to 
ban the cop-killer bullets in the 97th, 98th and 99th Congresses. It 
enjoyed the overwhelming support of law enforcement groups and, 
ultimately, tacit support from the National Rifle Association. It was 
finally signed into law by President Reagan on August 28, 1986.
  The crime bill enacted in 1994 contained my amendment to broaden the 
1986 ban to cover new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing rounds.
  Our cities are becoming more aware of the benefits to be gained from 
ammunition control. The District of Columbia and some other cities 
prohibit a person from possessing ammunition without a valid license 
for a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition. Beginning 
in 1990, the city of Los Angeles banned the sale of all ammunition 1 
week prior to Independence Day and New Year's Day in an effort to 
reduce injuries and deaths caused by the firing of guns into the air. 
And in September 1994, the city of Chicago became the first in America 
to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition.
  Such efforts are laudable. But they are isolated attempts to cure 
what is in truth a national disease. We need to do more, but to do so, 
we need information to guide policy making. This bill would fulfill 
that need by requiring annual reports to BATF by manufactures and 
importers and by directing a study by the National Academy of Sciences. 
We also need to encourage manufacturers of ammunition to be more 
responsible. By substantially increasing application fees for licenses 
to manufacture .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9-mm ammunition, this bill 
would discourage the reckless production of unsafe ammunition or 
ammunition which causes excessive damage.
  My fourth measure provides a comprehensive way of addressing the 
epidemic proportions of violence in America.
  By including two different crime-related provisions, my bill attacks 
the crime epidemic on more than just one front. If we are truly serious 
about confronting our Nation's crime problem, we must learn more about 
the nature of the epidemic of bullet-related violence and ways to 
control it. To do this, we must require records to be kept on the 
disposition of ammunition.
  In October 1992, the Senate Finance Committee received testimony that 
public health and safety experts have, independently, concluded that 
there is an epidemic of bullet-related violence. The figures are 
staggering.
  In 1995, bullets were used in the murders of 23,673 people in the 
United States. By focusing on bullets, and not guns, we recognize that 
much like nuclear waste, guns remain active for centuries. With minimum 
care, they do not deteriorate. However, bullets are consumed. Estimates 
suggest we have only a 4-year's supply of them.
  Not only am I proposing that we tax bullets used disproportionately 
in crimes--9 millimeter, .25 and .32 caliber bullets--I also believe we 
must set up a Bullet Death and Injury Control Program within the 
Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control. This Center will enhance our knowledge of the distribution and 
status of bullet-related death and injury and subsequently make 
recommendations about the extent and nature of bullet-related violence.
  So that the Center would have substantive information to study and 
analyze, this bill also requires importers and manufacturers of 
ammunition to keep records and submit an annual report to the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition. 
Currently, importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not required 
to do so.
  My next two bills, the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999 and the 
Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999, ban or heavily tax .25 
caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 mm ammunition. These calibers of bullets 
are used disproportionately in crime. They are not sporting or hunting 
rounds, but instead are the bullets of choice for drug dealers and 
violent felons. Every year they contribute overwhelmingly to the 
pervasive loss of life caused by bullet wounds.
  Today marks the fifth time in as many Congresses that I have 
introduced legislation to ban or tax these pernicious bullets. As the 
terrible gunshot death toll in the United States continues unabated, so 
too does the need for these bills, which, by keeping these bullets out 
of the hands of criminals, would save a significant number of lives.
  The number of Americans killed or wounded each year by bullets 
demonstrates their true cost to American society. Just look at the 
data.
  The lifetime risk of death from homicide in U.S. males is 1 in 164, 
about the same as the risk of death in battle faced by U.S. servicemen 
in the Vietnam war. For black males, the lifetime risk of death from 
homicide is 1 in 28, twice the risk of death in battle faced by Marines 
in Vietnam.
  As noted by Susan Baker and her colleagues in the book Epidemiology 
and Health Policy, edited by Sol Levine and Abraham Lilienfeld, there 
is a correlation between rates of private ownership of guns and gun-
related death rates; guns cause two-thirds of family homicides, and 
small, easily concealed weapons comprise the majority of guns used for 
homicides, suicides and unintentional death.
  Baker states that:

       * * * these facts of the epidemiology of firearm-related 
     deaths and injuries have important implications. Combined 
     with their lethality, the widespread availability of easily 
     concealed handguns for impetuous use by people who are angry, 
     drunk, or frightened appears to be a major determinant of the 
     high firearm death rate in the United States. Each 
     contributing factor has implications for prevention. 
     Unfortunately, issues related to gun control have evoked such 
     strong sentiments that epidemiologic data are rarely employed 
     to good advantage.

  Strongly held views on both sides of the gun control issue have made 
the subject difficult for epidemiologists. I would suggest that a good 
deal of energy is wasted in this never-ending debate, for gun control 
as we know it misses the point. We ought to focus on the bullets, not 
the guns.
  I would remind the Senate of our experience in controlling epidemics. 
Although the science of epidemiology traces its roots to antiquity--
Hippocrates stressed the importance of considering environmental 
influences on human diseases--the first modern epidemiological study 
was conducted by James Lind in 1747. His efforts led to the eventual 
control of scurvy. It wasn't until 1795 that the British Navy accepted 
his analysis and required

[[Page 894]]

limes in shipboard diets. Most solutions are not perfect. Disease is 
rarely eliminated. But might epidemiology be applied in the case of 
bullets to reduce suffering? I believe so.
  In 1854 John Snow and William Farr collected data that clearly showed 
cholera was caused by contaminated drinking water. Snow removed the 
handle of the Broad Street pump in London to prevent people from 
drawing water from this contaminated water source and the disease 
stopped in that population. His observations led to a legislative 
mandate that all London water companies filter their water by 1857. 
Cholera epidemics subsided. Now treatment of sewage prevents cholera 
from entering our rivers and lakes, and the disinfection of drinking 
water makes water distribution systems uninhabitable for cholera 
vibrio, identified by Robert Koch as the causative agent 26 years after 
Snow's study.
  In 1900, Walter Reed identified mosquitos as the carriers of yellow 
fever. Subsequent mosquito control efforts by another U.S. Army doctor, 
William Gorgas, enabled the United States to complete the Panama Canal. 
The French failed because their workers were too sick from yellow fever 
to work. Now that it is known that yellow fever is caused by a virus, 
vaccines are used to eliminate the spread of the disease.
  These pioneering epidemiology success stories showed the world that 
epidemics require an interaction between three things: the host--(the 
person who becomes sick or, in the case of bullets, the shooting 
victim); the agent--(the cause of sickness, or the bullet); and the 
environment--(the setting in which the sickness occurs or, in the case 
of bullets, violent behavior). Interrupt this epidemiological triad and 
you reduce or eliminate disease and injury.
  How might this approach apply to the control of bullet-related injury 
and death? Again, we are contemplating something different from gun 
control. There is a precedent here. In the middle of this century it 
was recognized that epidemiology could be applied to automobile death 
and injury. From a governmental perspective, this hypothesis was first 
adopted in 1959, late in the administration of Gov. Averell Harriman of 
New York State. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, I drafted a 
statement on the subject which was released by Senator John F. Kennedy 
as part of a general response to inquiries from the American Automobile 
Association. Then Senator Kennedy stated:

       Traffic accidents constitute one of the greatest, perhaps 
     the greatest of the nation's public health problems. They 
     waste as much as 2 percent of our gross national product 
     every year and bring endless suffering. The new highways will 
     do much to control the rise of the traffic toll, but by 
     themselves they will not reduce it. A great deal more 
     investigation and research is needed. Some of this has 
     already begun in connection with the highway program. It 
     should be extended until highway safety research takes its 
     place as an equal of the many similar programs of health 
     research which the federal government supports.

  Experience in the 1950's and early 1960's prior to passage of the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, showed that traffic safety enforcement 
campaigns designed to change human behavior did not improve traffic 
safety. In fact, the death and injury toll mounted. I was Assistant 
Secretary of Labor in the mid-1960's when Congress was developing the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and I was called to testify.
  It was clear to me and others that motor vehicle injuries and deaths 
could not be limited by regulating driver behavior. Nonetheless, we had 
an epidemic on our hands and we needed to do something about it. My 
friend William Haddon, the first Administrator of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, recognized that automobile fatalities 
were caused not by the initial collision, when the automobile strikes 
some object, but by a second collision, in which energy from the first 
collision is transferred to the interior of the car, causing the driver 
and occupants to strike the steering wheel, dashboard, or other 
structures in the passenger compartment. The second collision is the 
agent of injury to the hosts--the car's occupants.
  Efforts to make automobiles crashworthy follow examples used to 
control infectious disease epidemics. Reduce or eliminate the agent of 
injury. Seatbelts, padded dashboards, and airbags are all specifically 
designed to reduce, if not eliminate, injury caused by the agent of 
automobile injuries, energy transfer to the human body during the 
second collision. In fact, we've done nothing revolutionary. All of the 
technology used to date to make cars crashworthy, including airbags, 
was developed prior to 1970.
  Experience shows the approach worked. Of course, it could have worked 
better, but it worked. Had we been able to totally eliminate the 
agent--the second collision--the cure would have been complete. 
Nonetheless, merely by focusing on simple, achievable remedies, we 
reduced the traffic death and injury epidemic by 30 percent. Motor 
vehicle deaths declined in absolute terms by 13 percent from 1980 to 
1990, despite significant increases in the number of drivers, vehicles, 
and miles driven. Driver behavior is changing, too. National seatbelt 
usage is up dramatically, 60 percent now compared to 14 percent in 
1984. These efforts have resulted in some 15,000 lives saved and 
100,000 injuries avoided each year.
  We can apply that experience to the epidemic of murder and injury 
from bullets. The environment in which these deaths and injuries occur 
is complex. Many factors likely contribute to the rise in bullet-
related injury. Here is an important similarity with the situation we 
faced 25 years ago regarding automobile safety. We found we could not 
easily alter the behavior of millions of drivers, but we could--
easily--change the behavior of three or four automobile manufacturers. 
Likewise, we simply cannot do much to change the environment--violent 
behavior--in which gun-related injury occurs, nor do we know how. We 
can, however, do something about the agent causing the injury: bullets. 
Ban them. At least the rounds used disproportionately to cause death 
and injury; that is, the .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 millimeter 
bullets. These three rounds account for the ammunition used in about 13 
percent of licensed guns in New York City, yet they are involved in 
one-third of all homicides. They are not, as I have said, useful for 
sport or hunting. They are used for violence. If we fail to confront 
the fact that these rounds are used disproportionately in crimes, 
innocent people will continue to die.
  I have called on Congress during the past several sessions to ban or 
heavily tax these bullets. This would not be the first time that 
Congress has banned a particular round of ammunition. In 1986, it 
passed legislation written by the Senator from New York banning the so-
called ``cop-killer'' bullet. This round, jacketed with tungsten 
alloys, steel, brass, or any number of other metals, had been 
demonstrated to penetrate no fewer than four police flak jackets and an 
additional five Los Angeles County phone books at one time. In 1982, 
the New York Police Benevolent Association came to me and asked me to 
do something about the ready availability of these bullets. The result 
was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which we introduced in 
1982, 1983, and for the last time during the 99th Congress. In the end, 
with the tacit support of the National Rifle Association, the measure 
passed the Congress and was signed by the President as Public Law 99-
408 on August 28, 1986. In the 1994 crime bill, we enacted my amendment 
to broaden the ban to include new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing 
rounds.
  There are some 220 million firearms in circulation in the United 
States today. They are, in essence, simple machines, and with minimal 
care, remain working for centuries. However, estimates suggest that we 
have only a 4-year supply of bullets. Some 2 billion cartridges are 
used each year. At any given time there are some 7.5 billion rounds in 
factory, commercial, or household inventory.
  In all cases, with the exception of pistol whipping, gun-related 
injuries are caused not by the gun, but by the agents involved in the 
second collision: the bullets. Eliminating the most dangerous rounds 
would not end the problem of handgun killings. But it would

[[Page 895]]

reduce it. A 30-percent reduction in bullet-related deaths, for 
instance, would save over 10,000 lives each year and prevent up to 
50,000 wounds.
  The bills I introduce today would begin the process. They would begin 
to control the problem by banning or taxing those rounds used 
disproportionately in crime--the .25-caliber, .32-caliber, and 9-
millimeter rounds. The bills recognize the epidemic nature of the 
problem, building on findings contained in the June 10, 1992 issue of 
the Journal of the American Medical Association which was devoted 
entirely to the subject of violence, principally violence associated 
with firearms.
  My seventh bill introduces legislation today to amend Title 18 of the 
United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun 
ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, commonly referred 
to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of 
the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics 
test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of 
penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture 
and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability.
  Mr. President, it has been seventeen years since I first introduced 
legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or ``cop-killer,'' 
bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association 
of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet 
capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then 
beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement 
Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture, 
importation, and sale of such ammunition.
  At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous 
``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the 
softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core 
prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus 
permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a 
standard-issue police vest or ``flak-jacket.'' These bullets could go 
through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My 
legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of 
steel or other hard metals.
  Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took 
four years before this seemingly non-controversial legislation was 
enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--
that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were 
themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these 
insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The 
bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97-1, and was 
signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408).
  That 1986 Act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my 
knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor-
piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually 
found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor-
piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded 
the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like 
most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from 
the 1986 law. But this core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket, 
solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again, 
our nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon 
learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill 
to ban it.
  Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able 
to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the 
support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance 
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James 
O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at 
BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an 
amendment to the 1994 Crime Bill.
  Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that 
continuing ``innovations'' in bullet design would result in new armor-
piercing rounds capable of evading the ban. It was at this time that 
some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new 
approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather 
than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not 
entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, 
but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and 
their constituent ammunition manufactures, felt that any such broad-
based ban based on a bullets ``performance standard'' would inevitably 
lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed 
it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons 
ban as a slipper slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws 
only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of 
bullets.
  And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary 
tow write into law an armor-piercing bullet ``performance standard.'' 
At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this 
could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to 
control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability 
to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible 
in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing 
capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing 
content-based approach.
  Well. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of 
the National Institute of Standard and Technology wrote a report 
describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet 
performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor-
piercing capability could be developed within six months.
  So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for 
enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am 
introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the 
uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will 
ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, 
regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who 
would use them against our law enforcement officers.
  I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way 
infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would 
not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only 
restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one 
can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer 
rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the 
arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose; to kill 
police officers.
  The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step 
ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the 
legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be 
early in the 106th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer 
bullet business permanently.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 152

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Real Cost of Destructive 
     Ammunition Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

       (a) Increase in Manufacturers Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on firearms) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Shells, and cartridges.'' and inserting 
     ``Shells and cartridges not taxable at 10,000 percent.'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``Articles taxable at 10,000 percent.--

[[Page 896]]

       ``Any jacketed, hollow point projectile which may be used 
     in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce, 
     upon impact, evenly-spaced sharp or barb-like projections 
     that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.''
       (2) Additional taxes added to the general fund.--Section 
     3(a) of the Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)), 
     commonly referred to as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act'', is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``There shall not be covered into the 
     fund the portion of the tax imposed by such section 4181 that 
     is attributable to any increase in amounts received in the 
     Treasury under such section by reason of the amendments made 
     by section 2(a)(1) of the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition 
     Act, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury.''

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL TAX FOR IMPORTERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DEALERS 
                   OF HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--Section 5801 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special occupational tax on 
     importers, manufacturers, and dealers of machine guns, 
     destructive devices, and certain other firearms) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Special Rule for Handgun Ammunition.--
       ``(1) In general.--On 1st engaging in business and 
     thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer 
     and manufacturer of handgun ammunition shall pay a special 
     (occupational) tax for each place of business at the rate of 
     $10,000 a year or fraction thereof.
       ``(2) Handgun ammunition defined.--For purposes of this 
     part, the term `handgun ammunition' shall mean any centerfire 
     cartridge which has a cartridge case of less than 1.3 inches 
     in length and any cartridge case which is less than 1.3 
     inches in length.''
       (2) Registration of importers and manufacturers of handgun 
     ammunition.--Section 5802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to registration of importers, manufacturers, 
     and dealers) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and each 
     importer and manufacturer of handgun ammunition,'' after 
     ``dealer in firearms'', and
       (B) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, and handgun 
     ammunition operations of an importer or manufacturer,'' after 
     ``dealer''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter heading.--Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to machine guns, destructive devices, 
     and certain other firearms) is amended in the chapter heading 
     by inserting ``HANDGUN AMMUNITION,'' after ``CHAPTER 53--''.
       (2) Table of chapters.--The heading for chapter 53 in the 
     table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:


``Chapter 53--Handgun ammunition, machine guns, destructive devices, 
              and certain other firearms.''
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on July 1, 1999.
       (2) All taxpayers treated as commencing in business on july 
     1, 1997.--Any person engaged on July 1, 1999, in any trade or 
     business which is subject to an occupational tax by reason of 
     the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall be treated for 
     purposes of such tax as having 1st engaged in a trade of 
     business on such date.
                                  ____


                                 S. 153

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Destructive Ammunition 
     Prohibition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The term `destructive ammunition' means any jacketed, 
     hollow point projectile that may be used in a handgun and the 
     jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, sharp-
     tipped, barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter 
     of the unfired projectile.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

       Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``or destructive'' after 
     ``armor piercing''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or destructive'' after 
     ``armor piercing''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 154

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Handgun Ammunition Control 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and 
     manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of 
     importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition 
     of ammunition at the place of business of such importer or 
     manufacturer for such period and in such form as the 
     Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall 
     include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition 
     shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, 
     production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during 
     the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form 
     specified by the Secretary, shall include the amounts, 
     calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and 
     shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later 
     than the close of business on the date specified by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the National 
     Academy of Sciences to--
       (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of 
     the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and
       (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a 
     report with recommendations on the potential for preventing 
     crime by regulating or restricting the availability of 
     ammunition.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF 
                   AMMUNITION.

       Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a 
     fee of $10,000 per year;''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 155

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Crime Control Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there is no reliable information on the amount of 
     ammunition available;
       (2) importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not 
     required to keep records to report to the Federal Government 
     on ammunition imported, produced, or shipped;
       (3) the rate of bullet-related deaths in the United States 
     is unacceptably high and growing;
       (4) three calibers of bullets are used disproportionately 
     in crime: 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets;
       (5) injury and death are greatest in young males, and 
     particularly young black males;
       (6) epidemiology can be used to study bullet-related death 
     and injury to evaluate control options;
       (7) bullet-related death and injury has placed increased 
     stress on the American family resulting in increased welfare 
     expenditures under title IV of the Social Security Act;
       (8) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to the 
     increase in medicaid expenditures under title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act;
       (9) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to 
     increased supplemental security income benefits under title 
     XVI of the Social Security Act;
       (10) a tax on the sale of bullets will help control bullet-
     related death and injury;
       (11) there is no central responsible agency for trauma, 
     there is relatively little funding available for the study of 
     bullet-related death and injury, and there are large gaps in 
     research programs to reduce injury;
       (12) current laws and programs relevant to the loss of life 
     and productivity from bullet-related trauma are inadequate to 
     protect the citizens of the United States; and
       (13) increased research in bullet-related violence is 
     needed to better understand the causes of such violence, to 
     develop options for controlling such violence, and to 
     identify and overcome barriers to implementing effective 
     controls.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to increase the tax on the sale of 9 millimeter, .25 
     caliber, and .32 caliber bullets (except with respect to any 
     sale to law enforcement agencies) as a means of reducing the 
     epidemic of bullet-related death and injury;
       (2) to undertake a nationally coordinated effort to survey, 
     collect, inventory, synthesize, and disseminate adequate data 
     and information for--
       (A) understanding the full range of bullet-related death 
     and injury, including impacts on the family structure and 
     increased demands for benefit payments under provisions of 
     the Social Security Act;
       (B) assessing the rate and magnitude of change in bullet-
     related death and injury over time;
       (C) educating the public about the extent of bullet-related 
     death and injury; and
       (D) expanding the epidemiologic approach to evaluate 
     efforts to control bullet-related death and injury and other 
     forms of violence;
       (3) to develop options for controlling bullet-related death 
     and injury;

[[Page 897]]

       (4) to build the capacity and encourage responsibility at 
     the Federal, State, community, group, and individual levels 
     for control and elimination of bullet-related death and 
     injury; and
       (5) to promote a better understanding of the utility of the 
     epidemiologic approach for evaluating options to control or 
     reduce death and injury from nonbullet-related violence.
            TITLE I--BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the Centers 
     for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention 
     and Control (referred to as the ``Center'') a Bullet Death 
     and Injury Control Program (referred to as the ``Program'').
       (b) Purpose.--The Center shall conduct research into and 
     provide leadership and coordination for--
       (1) the understanding and promotion of knowledge about the 
     epidemiologic basis for bullet-related death and injury 
     within the United States;
       (2) developing technically sound approaches for 
     controlling, and eliminating, bullet-related deaths and 
     injuries;
       (3) building the capacity for implementing the options, and 
     expanding the approaches to controlling death and disease 
     from bullet-related trauma; and
       (4) educating the public about the nature and extent of 
     bullet-related violence.
       (c) Functions.--The functions of the Program shall be--
       (1) to summarize and to enhance the knowledge of the 
     distribution, status, and characteristics of bullet-related 
     death and injury;
       (2) to conduct research and to prepare, with the assistance 
     of State public health departments--
       (A) statistics on bullet-related death and injury;
       (B) studies of the epidemic nature of bullet-related death 
     and injury; and
       (C) data on the status of the factors, including legal, 
     socioeconomic, and other factors, that bear on the control of 
     bullets and the eradication of the bullet-related epidemic;
       (3) to publish information about bullet-related death and 
     injury and guides for the practical use of epidemiological 
     information, including publications that synthesize 
     information relevant to national goals of understanding the 
     bullet-related epidemic and methods for its control;
       (4) to identify socioeconomic groups, communities, and 
     geographic areas in need of study, develop a strategic plan 
     for research necessary to comprehend the extent and nature of 
     bullet-related death and injury, and determine what options 
     exist to reduce or eradicate such death and injury;
       (5) to provide for the conduct of epidemiologic research on 
     bullet-related death and injury through grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other means, by Federal, State, 
     and private agencies, institutions, organizations, and 
     individuals;
       (6) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and 
     local agencies on the technical management of data 
     collection, storage, and retrieval necessary to collect, 
     evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information about the 
     extent and nature of the bullet-related epidemic of death and 
     injury as well as options for its control;
       (7) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, organizations, and individuals about options 
     for actions to eradicate or reduce the epidemic of bullet-
     related death and injury;
       (8) to provide training and technical assistance to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and other Federal, 
     State, and local agencies regarding the collection and 
     interpretation of bullet-related data; and
       (9) to research and explore bullet-related death and injury 
     and options for its control.
       (d) Advisory Board.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall have an independent 
     advisory board to assist in setting the policies for and 
     directing the Program.
       (2) Membership.--The advisory board shall consist of 13 
     members, including--
       (A) 1 representative from the Centers for Disease Control;
       (B) 1 representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     and Firearms;
       (C) 1 representative from the Department of Justice;
       (D) 1 member from the Drug Enforcement Agency;
       (E) 3 epidemiologists from universities or nonprofit 
     organizations;
       (F) 1 criminologist from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (G) 1 behavioral scientist from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (H) 1 physician from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (I) 1 statistician from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (J) 1 engineer from a university or nonprofit organization; 
     and
       (K) 1 public communications expert from a university or 
     nonprofit organization.
       (3) Terms.--Members of the advisory board shall serve for 
     terms of 5 years, and may serve more than 1 term.
       (4) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (5) Travel expenses.--A member of the advisory board that 
     is not otherwise in the Federal Government service shall, to 
     the extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, be 
     paid actual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence expenses in accordance with section 5703 of title 
     5, United States Code, when the member is away from the 
     member's usual place of residence.
       (6) Chair.--The members of the advisory board shall select 
     1 member to serve as chair.
       (e) Consultation.--The Center shall conduct the Program 
     required under this section in consultation with the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of 
     Justice.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
     $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 for the purpose of carrying 
     out this section.
       (g) Report.--The Center shall prepare an annual report to 
     Congress on the Program's findings, the status of 
     coordination with other agencies, its progress, and problems 
     encountered with options and recommendations for their 
     solution. The report for December 31, 2000, shall contain 
     options and recommendations for the Program's mission and 
     funding levels for the fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and 
     beyond.
          TITLE II--INCREASE IN EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS

     SEC. 201. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
     ``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber 
     ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000 
     percent.''.
       (b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181 
     shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or 
     for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency, 
     or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political 
     subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality thereof).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
                      TITLE III--USE OF AMMUNITION

     SEC. 301. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and 
     manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of 
     importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition 
     of ammunition at the licensee's place of business for such 
     period and in such form as the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of the National Center for Injury 
     Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control 
     (for the purpose of ensuring that the information that is 
     collected is useful for the Bullet Death and Injury Control 
     Program), may by regulation prescribe. Such records shall 
     include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition 
     shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, 
     production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during 
     the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form 
     specified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director 
     of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of 
     the Centers for Disease Control (for the purpose of ensuring 
     that the information that is collected is useful for the 
     Bullet Death and Injury Control Program), shall include the 
     amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed 
     of, and shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon 
     not later than the close of business on the date specified by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the Centers for 
     Disease Control to--
       (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of 
     the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and

[[Page 898]]

       (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a 
     report with recommendations on the potential for preventing 
     crime by regulating or restricting the availability of 
     ammunition.
                                  ____


                                 S. 156

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Crime Reduction Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL ACTS.

       Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by in paragraph (8), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) for any person to manufacture, transfer, or import 
     .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that 
     this paragraph shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for 
     the use of the United States or any department or agency 
     thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political 
     subdivision thereof; and
       ``(B) any manufacture or importation for testing or for 
     experimenting authorized by the Secretary; and
       ``(10) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver 
     .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that 
     this paragraph shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of 
     such ammunition for the use of the United States or any 
     department or agency thereof or any State or any department, 
     agency, or political subdivision thereof; and
       ``(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of 
     such ammunition for testing or for experimenting authorized 
     by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. LICENSING OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

       Section 923(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive 
     devices, armor piercing ammunition, or .25 or .32 caliber or 
     9 millimeter ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year;''.

     SEC. 4. LICENSING OF NONDESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

       Section 923(a)(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) of ammunition for firearms other than destructive 
     devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $10 per 
     year.''.

     SEC. 5. IMPORTERS.

       Section 923(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) If the applicant is an importer--
       ``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive 
     devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $1,000 per 
     year; or
       ``(B) of firearms other than destructive devices or 
     ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices, or 
     ammunition other than armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 
     9 millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $50 per 
     year.''.

     SEC. 6. MARKING AMMUNITION AND PACKAGES.

       Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall 
     mark all .25 and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition and 
     packages containing such ammunition for distribution, in the 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary by regulation.''.

     SEC. 7. USE OF RESTRICTED AMMUNITION.

       Section 929(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) inserting ``, or with .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition,'' after ``possession of armor piercing 
     ammunition''; and
       (2) inserting ``, or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter 
     ammunition,'' after ``armor-piercing handgun ammunition''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the first day of the first calendar month that 
     begins more than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 157

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Real Cost of Handgun 
     Ammunition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new flush 
     sentence:
     ``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber 
     ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000 
     percent.''
       (b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181 
     shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or 
     for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency, 
     or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political 
     subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality thereof).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 158

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
     Protection Amendment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING 
                   AMMUNITION.

       Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to 
     be capable of penetrating body armor.''.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF ARMOR PIERCING CAPABILITY OF 
                   PROJECTILES.

       Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     based on standards to be developed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the 
     uniform testing of projectiles to determine whether such 
     projectiles are capable of penetrating National Institute of 
     Justice Level II-A body armor.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney 
     General to--
       (1) develop and implement performance standards for armor 
     piercing ammunition; and
       (2) promulgate regulations for performance standards for 
     armor piercing ammunition.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 159. A bill to amend chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code, 
to increase fees paid to Federal jurors, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                increase the fees paid to federal jurors

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill aimed 
at raising the fee Federal jurors are paid to that of $45.00 per day. 
According to the current statute, Federal jurors are paid $40.00 per 
day for the first thirty days of a trial and $50.00 for each day 
thereafter. They also receive $3.00 a day for transportation costs. The 
$40.00 per day a juror receives for his or her all day service is below 
the prevailing minimum wage, and the daily $3.00 transportation fee 
falls far below that required for parking or riding a bus or the 
subway.
  These inadequate sums place an undue hardship on those jurors who 
most need compensation: the self-employed, the commissioned, the 
temporary workers, and those who work for small employers often making 
it difficult for litigants to have representative jury panels. While 
undue hardship is often grounds for deferral or excusal from jury duty, 
it is important that we limit the financial hardship for those of our 
citizens engaged in this most important civic duty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 159

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. JUROR FEES.

       Section 1871(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``of $40 per day'' and inserting ``$45 
     per day.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 160. A bill to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to develop 
and implement a plan to improve the Capitol grounds through the 
elimination and modification of space alloted for parking; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


          arc of park capitol grounds improvement act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just over 98 years ago, in March 1901, 
the

[[Page 899]]

Senate Committee on the District of Columbia was directed by Senate 
Resolution to ``report to the Senate plans for the development and 
improvement of the entire park system of the District of Columbia * * * 
(F)or the purpose of preparing such plans the committee * * * may 
secure the services of such experts as may be necessary for a proper 
consideration of the subject.''
  And secure ``such experts'' the committee assuredly did. The 
Committee formed what came to be known as the McMillan Commission, 
named for committee chairman, Senator James McMillan of Michigan. The 
Commission's membership was a ``who's who'' of late 19th and early 20th 
century architecture, landscape design, and art: Daniel Burnham, 
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKim, and Augustus St. Gaudens. 
The Commission traveled that summer to Rome, Venice, Vienna, Budapest, 
Paris, and London, studying the landscapes, architecture, and public 
spaces of the grandest cities in the world. The McMillan Commission 
returned and fashioned the city of Washington as we now know it.
  We are particularly indebted today for the Commission's preservation 
of the Mall. When the members left for Europe, the Congress had just 
given the Pennsylvania Railroad a 400-foot wide swath of the Mall for a 
new station and trackage. It is hard to imagine our city without the 
uninterrupted stretch of greenery from the Capitol to the Washington 
Monument, but such would have been the result. Fortunately, when in 
London, Daniel Burnham was able to convince Pennsylvania Railroad 
president Cassatt that a site on Massachusetts Avenue would provide a 
much grander entrance to the city. President Cassatt assented and 
Daniel Burnham gave us Union Station.
  But the focus of the Commission's work was the District's park 
system. The Commission noted in its report:

       Aside from the pleasure and the positive benefits to health 
     that the people derive from public parks, in a capital city 
     like Washington there is a distinct use of public spaces as 
     the indispensable means of giving dignity to Government 
     buildings and of making suitable connections between the 
     great departments . . . (V)istas and axes; sites for 
     monuments and museums; parks and pleasure gardens; fountains 
     and canals; in a word all that goes to make a city a 
     magnificent and consistent work of art were regarded as 
     essential in the plans made by L'Enfant under the direction 
     of the first President and his Secretary of State.

  Washington and Jefferson might be disappointed at the affliction now 
imposed on much of the Capitol Grounds by the automobile.
  Despite the ready and convenient availability of the city's Metrorail 
system, an extraordinary number of Capitol Hill employees drive to 
work. No doubt many must. But must we provide free parking? If there is 
one lesson learned from the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, it is that free goods are always wasted. Free 
parking is a most powerful incentive to drive to work when the 
alternative is to pay for public transportation. Furthermore, much as 
expenses rise to meet income, newly provided parking spaces are 
instantly filled. At the foot of Pennsylvania Avenue is a scar of 
angle-parked cars, in parking spaces made available temporarily during 
construction of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Once 
completed, spaces in the building's garage would be made available to 
Senate employees and Pennsylvania Avenue would be restored. Not so. The 
demand for spaces has simply risen to meet the available supply, and 
the unit block of the Nation's main street remains a disaster.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to improve the Capitol Grounds 
through the near-complete elimination of surface parking. As the 
Architect of the Capitol eliminates these unsightly lots, they will be 
reconstructed as public parks, landscaped in the fashion of the Capitol 
Grounds. I envision what I call an arc of park sweeping around the 
Capitol from Second Street, Northeast, around to the Capitol Reflecting 
Pool, and thence back to First Street, Southeast. Delaware Avenue 
between Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue would be closed to 
traffic and rebuilt as a pedestrian walkway, a grand pathway to the 
Capitol from Union Station.
  Finally, there is still the matter of parking. This legislation 
authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to construct underground 
parking facilities, as needed. These facilities, which will undoubtedly 
be expensive, will be financed simply by charging for the parking, a 
legitimate user fee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 160

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arc of Park Capitol Grounds 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CAPITOL GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall 
     develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive plan 
     (referred to as the ``comprehensive plan'') for the 
     improvement of the grounds of the United States Capitol as 
     described in section 193a of title 40, United States Code.
       (b) Arc of Park.--The comprehensive plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with the 1981 Report on the ``Master Plan 
     for the Future Development of the Capitol Grounds and Related 
     Areas'' prepared in accordance with Public Law 94-59 (July 
     25, 1975); and
       (2) result in an ``arc of park'' sweeping from Second 
     Street, Northeast to the Capitol Reflecting Pool to First 
     Street, Southeast, with the Capitol Building as its 
     approximate center.
       (c) Details.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for, at 
     a minimum--
       (1) elimination of all current surface parking areas, 
     excepting those areas which provide on-street parallel 
     parking spaces;
       (2) replacement of off-street surface parking areas with 
     public parks landscaped in a fashion appropriate to the 
     United States Capitol grounds;
       (3) reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, Northeast, between 
     Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue as a thoroughfare 
     available principally to pedestrians as contemplated by the 
     Master Plan;
       (4) elimination of all but parallel parking on Pennsylvania 
     Avenue, between First and Third Streets, Northwest;
       (5) to the greatest extent practical, continuation of the 
     Pennsylvania Avenue tree line onto United States Capitol 
     Grounds and implementation of other appropriate landscaping 
     measures necessary to conform Pennsylvania Avenue between 
     First and Third Streets, Northwest, to the aesthetic 
     guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Avenue Development 
     Corporation;
       (6) closure of Maryland Avenue to through traffic between 
     First and Third Streets, Southwest, consistent with 
     appropriate access to and visitor parking for the United 
     States Botanic Garden; and
       (7) construction of additional underground parking 
     facilities, as needed, with--
       (A) the cost of construction and operation of such parking 
     facilities defrayed to the greatest extent practical by 
     charging appropriate usage fees, including time-of-day fees; 
     and
       (B) the parking facilities being made available to the 
     general public, with priority given to employees of the 
     Congress.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     construction and operation of any improvements under this Act 
     shall not be subject to--
       (1) any law of the District of Columbia or any State or 
     locality relating to taxes on sales, real estate, personal 
     property, special assessments, uses, or any other interest or 
     transaction (including Federal law); or
       (2) any law of the District of Columbia relating to use, 
     occupancy, or construction, including building costs, 
     permits, or inspection requirements (including Federal law).
       (b) Limitation.--The Architect of the Capitol shall comply 
     with appropriate recognized national life safety and building 
     codes in undertaking such construction and operation.

     SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL.

       The Architect of the Capitol--
       (1) shall be responsible for the structural, mechanical, 
     and custodial care and maintenance of the facilities 
     constructed under this Act and may discharge such 
     responsibilities directly or by contract; and
       (2) may permit the extension of steam and chilled water 
     from the Capitol Power Plant on a reimbursable basis to any 
     facilities or improvements constructed under this Act as a 
     cost of such improvements.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 161. A bill to provide for a transition to market-based rates for 
power

[[Page 900]]

sold by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee 
Valley Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


           power marketing administration reform act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Power Marketing 
Administration Reform Act of 1999, a bill to require that the Federal 
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) sell electricity at market rates and recover all costs.
  Mr. President, in 1935 only 15 percent of rural Americans had access 
to electricity. President Roosevelt's administration established the 
PMAs to sell power to rural Americans below market rates because so 
many rural areas could not afford to install the transmission and 
generation equipment required to provide electricity. Commencement of 
the massive public works projects such as TVA filled a desperate need 
for jobs during the Depression years and brought electricity to the 
many areas of our country which lacked access to this most basic 
amenity of modern life.
  The PMAs served an essential function in lifting our nation out of 
the Depression, Mr. President, but that time has passed. Sixty years 
after its inception, public power is less expensive and more accessible 
than ever before. The discounted rates provided by public power are a 
benefit which goes to a relatively few recipients at a tremendous 
expense to the American taxpayer. Nearly 60 percent of Federal sales go 
to just four states: Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, and Oregon. PMAs 
have failed to recover their operating costs for too long, and it is 
taxpayers who bear the cost of the discrepancy between cost of 
generation and consumer rates. This discrepancy has brought about a 
fiscal shortfall and significant environmental damage.
  Reports over past years from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Inspector General of the 
U.S. Department of Energy confirm this view. In 1997, for instance, the 
GAO reported that the Bonneville Power Administration, the Rural 
Utilities Service, and three other PMAs cost American taxpayers $2.5 
billion in fiscal year 1996. In March 1998 the GAO showed that the 
Federal government incurred a net cost of $1.5 billion from 
electricity-related activities in the Southeastern, Southwestern, and 
Western PMAs between 1992 and 1996. Up to $1.4 billion of the 
approximately $7 billion of Federal investment in assets derived from 
electricity-related activities in these PMAs is at risk of nonrecovery.
  The GAO has also reported on fairness in lending to the PMAs. The 
Federal Treasury incurs approximately 9 percent in debt when lending to 
the PMAs, but recovers only 3.5 percent from the PMAs on their 
outstanding debt. This is a loss to the U.S. Treasury of 5.5 percent on 
interest payments alone. It is taxpayers who are required to account 
for this interest shortfall.
  Mr. President, my bill would provide for full cost recovery rates for 
power sold by the PMAs and the TVA. Under the bill, PMA and TVA rates 
would be recalculated to conform to market rates and be resubmitted to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval. The bill 
would also require that PMA and TVA transmission facilities are subject 
to open-access regulation by the FERC, and that FERC would be 
authorized to revise such rates when necessary to maintain a 
competitive environment. Cooperatives and public power entities will be 
given the right of first refusal of PMA and TVA power at market prices. 
Revenue accrued from the revisal of these rates will go first to the 
U.S. Treasury to recover all costs. The residual amount will then be 
disbursed by formula to the Treasury to mitigate damage to the 
environment attributed to the operation of PMAs and the TVA, and to 
support renewable electricity generating resources.
  Mr. President, the time has come for public power to be held 
accountable for the use of public dollars. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 161

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Power Marketing 
     Administration Reform Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the use of fixed allocations of joint multipurpose 
     project costs and the failure to provide for the recovery of 
     actual interest costs and depreciation have resulted in--
       (A) substantial failures to recover costs properly 
     recoverable through power rates by the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority; 
     and
       (B) the imposition of unreasonable burdens on the taxpaying 
     public;
       (2) existing underallocations and underrecovery of costs 
     have led to inefficiencies in the marketing of Federally 
     generated electric power and to environmental damage; and
       (3) with the emergence of open access to power transmission 
     and competitive bulk power markets, market prices will 
     provide the lowest reasonable rates consistent with--
       (A) sound business principles;
       (B) maximum recovery of costs properly allocated to power 
     production; and
       (C) encouraging the most widespread use of power marketed 
     by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide 
     for--
       (1) full cost recovery rates for power sold by the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority; and
       (2) a transition to market-based rates for the power.

     SEC. 3. SALE OR DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL POWER BY FEDERAL POWER 
                   MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE TENNESSEE 
                   VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Accounting.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall develop and 
     implement procedures to ensure that the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     use the same accounting principles and requirements 
     (including the accounting principles and requirements with 
     respect to the accrual of actual interest costs during 
     construction and pending repayment for any project and 
     recognition of depreciation expenses) as are applied by the 
     Commission to the electric operations of public utilities.
       (b) Development and Submission of Rates to the 
     Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act and periodically thereafter but not less frequently 
     than once every 5 years, each Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a 
     description of proposed rates for the sale or disposition of 
     Federal power that will ensure the recovery of all costs 
     incurred by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority, respectively, for the generation 
     and marketing of the Federal power.
       (2) Costs to be recovered.--The costs to be recovered under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall include all fish and wildlife expenditures 
     required under treaty and legal obligations associated with 
     the construction and operation of the facilities from which 
     the Federal power is generated and sold; and
       (B) shall not include any cost of transmitting the Federal 
     power.
       (c) Commission Review, Approval, or Modification.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall review and either approve or modify rates for the sale 
     or disposition of Federal power submitted to the Commission 
     by each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority under this section, in a manner 
     that ensures that the rates will recover all costs described 
     in subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Basis for review.--The review by the Commission under 
     paragraph (1) shall be based on the record of proceedings 
     before the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority, except that the Commission shall 
     afford all affected persons an opportunity for an additional 
     hearing in accordance with the procedures established for 
     ratemaking by the Commission under the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 791a et seq.).
       (d) Application of Rates.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning on the date of approval or 
     modification by the Commission of rates under this section, 
     each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall apply the rates, as approved or 
     modified by the Commission, to each existing contract for the

[[Page 901]]

     sale or disposition of Federal power by the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority to 
     the maximum extent permitted by the contract.
       (2) Applicability.--This section shall cease to apply to a 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration or the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority as of the date of termination of all 
     commitments under any contract for the sale or disposition of 
     Federal power that were in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (e) Accounting Principles and Requirements.--In developing 
     or reviewing the rates required by this section, the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administrations, the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority, and the Commission shall rely on the accounting 
     principles and requirements developed under subsection (a).
       (f) Interim Rates.--Until market pricing for the sale or 
     disposition of Federal power by a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority is fully 
     implemented, the full cost recovery rates required by this 
     section shall apply to--
       (1) a new contract entered into after the date of enactment 
     of this Act for the sale of power by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrator or the Tennessee Valley Authority; 
     and
       (2) a renewal after the date of enactment of this Act of an 
     existing contract for the sale of power by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (g) Transition to Market-Based Rates.--
       (1) In general.--If the transition to full cost recovery 
     rates would result in rates that exceed market rates, the 
     Secretary of Energy may approve rates for power sold by 
     Federal Power Marketing Administrations at market rates, and 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority may approve rates for power 
     sold by the Tennessee Valley Authority at market rates, if--
       (A) operation and maintenance costs are recovered, 
     including all fish and wildlife costs required under existing 
     treaty and legal obligations;
       (B) the contribution toward recovery of investment 
     pertaining to power production is maximized; and
       (C) purchasers of power under existing contracts consent to 
     the remarketing by the Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     or the Tennessee Valley Authority of the power through 
     competitive bidding not later than 3 years after the approval 
     of the rates.
       (2) Competitive bidding.--Competitive bidding shall be used 
     to remarket power that is subject to, but not sold in 
     accordance with, paragraph (1).
       (h) Market-Based Pricing.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall develop 
     and implement procedures to ensure that all power sold by 
     Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority is sold at prices that reflect demand and 
     supply conditions within the relevant bulk power supply 
     market.
       (2) Bid and auction procedures.--The Secretary of Energy 
     shall establish by regulation bid and auction procedures to 
     implement market-based pricing for power sold under any power 
     sales contract entered into by a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority after the 
     date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including power that is under contract but that is declined 
     by the party entitled to purchase the power and remarketed 
     after that date.
       (i) Use of Revenue Collected Through Market-Based 
     Pricing.--
       (1) In general.--Revenue collected through market-based 
     pricing shall be disposed of as follows:
       (A) Revenue for operations, fish and wildlife, and project 
     costs.--Revenue shall be remitted to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to cover--
       (i) all power-related operations and maintenance expenses;
       (ii) all fish and wildlife costs required under existing 
     treaty and legal obligations; and
       (iii) the project investment cost pertaining to power 
     production.
       (B) Remaining revenue.--Revenue that remains after 
     remission to the Secretary of the Treasury under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be disposed of as follows:
       (i) Federal budget deficit.--50 percent of the revenue 
     shall be remitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
     purpose of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
       (ii) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--35 
     percent of the revenue shall be deposited in the fund 
     established under paragraph (2)(A).
       (iii) Fund for renewable resources.--15 percent of the 
     revenue shall be deposited in the fund established under 
     paragraph (3)(A).
       (2) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--
       (A) Establishment.--
       (i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for 
     Environmental Mitigation and Restoration'' (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the ``Fund''), consisting of funds 
     allocated under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
       (ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by a 
     Board of Directors consisting of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, or their designees.
       (B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making 
     expenditures--
       (i) to carry out project-specific plans to mitigate damage 
     to, and restore the health of, fish, wildlife, and other 
     environmental resources that is attributable to the 
     construction and operation of the facilities from which power 
     is generated and sold; and
       (ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and 
     administering the Fund.
       (C) Project-specific plans.--
       (i) In general.--The Board of Directors of the Fund shall 
     develop a project-specific plan described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i) for each project that is used to generate power 
     marketed by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (ii) Use of existing data, information, and plans.--In 
     developing plans under clause (i), the Board, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, shall rely on existing data, information, 
     and mitigation and restoration plans developed by--

       (I) the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (II) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       (IV) the heads of other Federal, State, and tribal 
     agencies.

       (D) Maximum amount.--
       (i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not 
     more than $200,000,000 in excess of the amount that the Board 
     of Directors of the Fund determines is necessary to cover the 
     costs of project-specific plans required under this 
     paragraph.
       (ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that 
     would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of such 
     project-specific plans shall be used by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury for purposes of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
       (3) Fund for renewable resources.--
       (A) Establishment.--
       (i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for 
     Renewable Resources'' (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     ``Fund''), consisting of funds allocated under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iii).
       (ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by the 
     Secretary of Energy.
       (B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making 
     expenditures--
       (i) to pay the incremental cost (above the expected market 
     cost of power) of nonhydroelectric renewable resources in the 
     region in which power is marketed by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration; and
       (ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and 
     administering the Fund.
       (C) Administration.--Amounts in the Fund shall be expended 
     only--
       (i) in accordance with a plan developed by the Secretary of 
     Energy that is designed to foster the development of 
     nonhydroelectric renewable resources that show substantial 
     long-term promise but that are currently too expensive to 
     attract private capital sufficient to develop or ascertain 
     their potential; and
       (ii) on recipients chosen through competitive bidding.
       (D) Maximum amount.--
       (i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not 
     more than $50,000,000 in excess of the amount that the 
     Secretary of Energy determines is necessary to carry out the 
     plan developed under subparagraph (C)(i).
       (ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that 
     would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of the 
     plan shall be used by the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     purposes of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
       (j) Preference.--
       (1) In general.--In making allocations or reallocations of 
     power under this section, a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     provide a preference for public bodies and cooperatives by 
     providing a right of first refusal to purchase the power at 
     market prices.
       (2) Use.--
       (A) In general.--Power purchased under paragraph (1)--
       (i) shall be consumed by the preference customer or resold 
     for consumption by the constituent end-users of the 
     preference customer; and
       (ii) may not be resold to other persons or entities.
       (B) Transmission access.--In accordance with regulations of 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a preference 
     customer shall have transmission access to power purchased 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Competitive bidding.--If a public body or cooperative 
     does not purchase power under paragraph (1), the power shall 
     be allocated to the next highest bidder.
       (k) Reforms.--The Secretary of Energy shall require each 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration to implement--
       (1) program management reforms that require the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administration to assign personnel and incur 
     expenses only for authorized power marketing, reclamation, 
     and flood control activities and

[[Page 902]]

     not for ancillary activities (including consulting or 
     operating services for other entities); and
       (2) annual reporting requirements that clearly disclose to 
     the public, the activities of the Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration (including the full cost of the power projects 
     and power marketing programs).
       (l) Contract Renewal.--Effective beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration shall not enter into or renew any power 
     marketing contract for a term that exceeds 5 years.
       (m) Restrictions.--Except for the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, each Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     shall be subject to the restrictions on the construction of 
     transmission and additional facilities that are established 
     under section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1944'') (58 Stat. 890)).

     SEC. 4. TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDED BY FEDERAL POWER 
                   MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND TENNESSEE VALLEY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall provide transmission service on an open access basis, 
     and at just and reasonable rates approved or established by 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under part II of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.), in the same manner 
     as the service is provided under Commission rules by any 
     public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission 
     under that part.
       (b) Expansion of Capabilities or Transmissions.--Subsection 
     (a) does not require a Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     or the Tennessee Valley Authority to expand a transmission or 
     interconnection capability or transmission.

     SEC. 5. INTERIM REGULATION OF POWER RATE SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL 
                   POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.

       (a) In General.--During the date beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which market-
     based pricing is implemented under section 3 (as determined 
     by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the Commission 
     may review and approve, reject, or revise power rate 
     schedules recommended for approval by the Secretary of 
     Energy, and existing rate schedules, for power sales by a 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration.
       (b) Basis for Approval.--In evaluating rates under 
     subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 
     accordance with section 3, shall--
       (1) base any approval of the rates on the protection of the 
     public interest; and
       (2) undertake to protect the interest of the taxpaying 
     public and consumers.
       (c) Commission Actions.--As the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission determines is necessary to protect the public 
     interest in accordance with section 3 until a full transition 
     is made to market-based rates for power sold by Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission may--
       (1) review the factual basis for determinations made by the 
     Secretary of Energy;
       (2) revise or modify those findings as appropriate;
       (3) revise proposed or effective rate schedules; or
       (4) remand the rate schedules to the Secretary of Energy.
       (d) Review.--An affected party (including a taxpayer, 
     bidder, preference customer, or affected competitor) may seek 
     a rehearing and judicial review of a final decision of the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under this section in 
     accordance with section 313 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 825l).
       (e) Procedures.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall by regulation establish procedures to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Transfers from the Department of the Interior.--Section 
     302(a)(3) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7152(a)(3)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Use of Funds to Study Noncost-Based Methods of Pricing 
     Hydroelectric Power.--Section 505 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7152 note; 
     106 Stat. 1343) is repealed.

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

       Except as provided in section 3(l), this Act shall apply to 
     a power sales contract entered into by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     after July 23, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 163. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain coins to be acquired by individual retirement accounts and 
other individually directed pension plan accounts; to the Committee on 
Finance.


           certified u.s. legal tender coins allowed in iras

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments 
for an individual retirement account (IRA).
  Congress excluded ``collectibles'', such as antiques, gold and silver 
bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to 
IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concerns that individuals 
would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal 
use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique 
rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also 
concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are 
valued.
  Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been 
excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are 
independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio 
diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver 
U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding 
certain precious metals bullion.
  My legislation would exclude form the definition of collectibles only 
those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards; 
certification by a nationally-recognized grading service, traded on a 
nationally-recognized network and held by a qualified trustee as 
described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment 
quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal 
use may be included in IRAs.
  There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or 
grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine 
each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established 
standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved) 
to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded.
  Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic 
networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These 
networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest 
in legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks 
function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of 
published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and 
sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until 
updated.
  Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national 
trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender 
coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification 
and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe 
and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and 
should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial 
investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 163

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECTIBLES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(m)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for 
     certain coins and bullion) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) any coin certified by a recognized grading service 
     and traded on a nationally recognized electronic network, or 
     listed by a recognized wholesale reporting service, and--
       ``(i) which is or was at any time legal tender in the 
     United States, or
       ``(ii) issued under the laws of any State, or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 164. A bill to improve mathematics and science instruction; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


      legislation to improve american math and science achievement

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
intended

[[Page 903]]

to help students in those States that do not fare well in academic 
comparisons with students from other nations. It authorizes grants to 
States whose students continue to be outperformed by students in a 
majority of the nations which took the Third International Mathematics 
and Science Study, or TIMSS.
  TIMSS showed us that indisputably our students do not fare well in 
international competition. The most striking finding was that American 
students do worse, comparative speaking, the longer they are in our 
schools. Our fourth graders performed in the middle range of scores in 
math and were second to Japan in science. Our seniors are bringing up 
the rear.
  American high school seniors performed among the lowest of the 21 
countries in the study. In mathematics our students were outperformed 
by those of 14 countries, were statistically similar to 4 countries, 
and outperformed only 2 countries. In science our students were 
outperformed by those of 11 countries, were similar to 7 countries, and 
again outperformed only 2 countries. Asian countries such as Korea, 
Japan, and Singapore did not participate in the twelfth grade study. 
Just as well, for morale purposes. Their students embarrassed our 
students at the fourth and eighth grade levels.
  The two questions that come to mind are what did we expect and what 
are we to do?
  Our expectations were high at the beginning of the decade. In 
September 1989, President Bush met with the Nation's governors in 
Charlottesville to set out goals for education. Four months later he 
devoted a sizable portion of his State of the Union Address to setting 
forth the agreed-upon goals. Some were lofty, harmless, and 
unmeasurable: ``By the year 2000 every child must start school ready to 
learn.'' Most children are. ``Every adult must be a skilled, literate 
worker and citizen.'' We know what it means to be a skilled mechanic, 
but a skilled citizen? Others were lofty, measurable, and the product 
of a leakage of reality that was stupefying then as now. First and 
foremost that ``By the year 2000, U.S. students would be first in the 
world in math and science achievement.''
  President Bush was speaking to Congress in a vocabulary created in 
the 1960's by James S. Coleman, then professor of sociology at Johns 
Hopkins University. The ``Coleman Report'' introduced the language of 
educational outputs. Previously we spoke of inputs: student-teacher 
ration, money per student, and such. Coleman introduced the idea of 
outputs, and measuring our standing in the world is one such.
  With Coleman we had a new vocabulary for education, but sadly not a 
new understanding. The first finding of his remarkable report was 
``that the schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on 
the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of 
the students is taken into account.'' This was seismic. Family 
background is more important than schools. But 24 years later, in 1990, 
it had not been learned, or could still be ignored.
  Stating that our goal was to become the leader in math and science 
was folly. I wrote in the Winter 1991 Public Interest that ``on no 
account could the President's goals--the quantified, specific goals--
reasonably be deemed capable of achievement.'' I cited the general 
decline in high school graduation rates that began in 1970 and the lack 
of success we had in meeting very similar goals President Reagan set 
out in 1984. Most basically, we were ignoring Coleman's findings that 
we would have to start with the American family before we could expect 
improvements in American students.
  I concluded the Public Interest piece by saying, ``If, as forecast 
here, the year 2000 arrives and the United States is nowhere near 
meeting the educational goals set out in 1990, the potential will 
nonetheless exist for serious debate as to why what was basically a 
political plan went wrong. We might even consider how it might have 
turned out better.''
  Our children will not meet the goals set for math and science 
leadership. How can we help them do better? The TIMSS report says that 
it is too early to draw specific conclusions about how to improve 
performance in twelfth grade, that it will take some time to analyze 
all the data therein. I should thing the higher education community 
would be at the forefront of this effort, for the colleges are the most 
immediately affected by undereducated high school graduates. One 
student in five takes remedial courses in at least one subject.
  Without giving short shrift to helping our elementary school 
students, we must focus on finding ways to keep them at the level they 
have achieved by fourth grade as they continue through school. This 
bill would make a small contribution to that effort by providing grants 
of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to states whose students collectively fall 
below the median score among the nations whose eighth graders retake 
the TIMSS tests this year or next. The money would be used to improve 
mathematics or science education. The grants would be awarded 
competitively; states whose students' scores qualify them must propose 
constructive ways of using the grants, such as for equipment, teacher 
training, or other purposes.
  The Department of Education last year released Linking the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study: Eighth grade results. This study showed 
how the states' NAEP scores and other nations' TIMSS scores could be 
compared. The Department of Education would use the same process to 
determine where states rank in comparision with the upcoming results of 
the TIMSS exams by a new group of eighth graders around the world. 
Those states whose students score below the median in either math or 
science would be eligible to apply for these grants.
  Mr. President, money is not the answer to our dismal showing among 
the nations of the world. Better families is the place to start. These 
grants, however, would help those states that need help the most. I ask 
my colleagues for their support and ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 164

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. GRANTS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE 
                   INSTRUCTION.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is 
     authorized to award a grant to the Governor or State 
     educational agency of a State if the Secretary determines 
     that the average score of 8th grade students in the State on 
     the 1999 retake of the Third International Mathematics and 
     Science Study (TIMSS) is or would be lower than the median of 
     the scores of the countries participating in the 1999 retake 
     of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
       (b) Amount.--The Secretary of Education shall award a grant 
     under this section in an amount not less than $500,000 and 
     not more than $1,000,000.
       (c) Comparison.--The Secretary of Education shall use the 
     results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress for comparisons between States and countries with 
     respect to the 1999 retake of the Third International 
     Mathematics and Science Study.
       (d) Competitive Basis.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under this section on a competitive basis.
       (e) Uses.--Each Governor or State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to improve mathematics and science instruction in the 
     State.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

     SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Math and Science Learning 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 165. A bill to require the Secretary of Education to correct 
poverty data to account for cost of living differences; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


 legislation to require poverty statistics be adjusted for local costs 
                               of living

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with a 
simple

[[Page 904]]

purpose: to require that the formulas for distributing grants under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act use poverty statistics adjusted 
for the costs of living in subnational areas. While residents of some 
states such as New York earn more as a whole than residents of many 
other states, they must also spend more. In some areas of New York, 
they spend twice as much for the same necessities as families in urban 
areas elsewhere in the nation. Children whose families live just above 
the poverty threshold in New York and other wealthier states are 
demonstrably worse off than children from families just below the 
poverty threshold in states where the cost of living is lower.
  As we begin the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act this year, I hope this disparity will be considered in 
the distribution of funds targeted to schools in areas with high 
incidences of poverty (primarily the Title One grants as now 
authorized).
  In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts 
released a study on redefining poverty. Our poverty index dates back to 
the work of Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky 
who, in the early 1960s, hit upon the idea of a nutritional standard, 
not unlike the ``pennyloaf'' of bread of the 18th century British poor 
laws. Our poverty standard would be three times the cost of the 
Department of Agriculture-defined minimally adequate ``food basket.''
  During consideration of the Family Support Act of 1988, I included a 
provision mandating the National Academy of Sciences to determine if 
our poverty measure is outdated and how it might be improved. The 
study, edited by Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, is entitled 
``Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.'' A Congressional Research Service 
review of the report states: The NAS panel makes several 
recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically alter the 
way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how federal funds are allotted to 
the States, and how eligibility for many Federal programs is 
determined. The recommended poverty measure would be based on more 
items in the family budget, would take major noncash benefits and taxes 
into account, and would be adjusted for regional differences in living 
costs.
  Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these 
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute 
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, States with high 
costs of living--states like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey and California, just to name a few--are not 
getting their fair share of Federal dollars because differences in the 
cost of living are not factored into the allocation formula. And the 
poor of these high cost states are penalized because they happen to 
live there. It is time to correct this inequity. The ESEA 
reauthorization will be one of the most significant measures we take up 
this year. For the children most in need of good schools and a good 
education, we should use adjusted poverty rates in the ESEA formulas. A 
national poverty rate leads to inequities. Poverty rates adjusted for 
subnational areas would be a significant step towards correcting them. 
This bill would do so.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for their support and ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 165

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. POVERTY DATA.

       Title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                   ``Part I--Poverty Data Adjustments

     ``SEC. 14901. POVERTY DATA ADJUSTMENTS.

       ``Whenever the Secretary uses any data that relates to the 
     incidence of poverty and is produced or published by or for 
     the Secretary of Commerce for subnational, State or substate 
     areas, the Secretary shall adjust the data to account for 
     differences in the cost of living in the areas.''.

     SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``The Education Grant Formula 
     Adjustment Act of 1999''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 166. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to determine any 
surpluses or shortfalls in certain grant amounts made available to 
States by reason of an undercount in the most recent decennial census 
conducted by the Bureau of the Census; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


    legislation to provide the fiscal consequences of the undercount

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is 
intended to shed a little more light on the consequences of a census 
that is not adjusted for the undercount. The bill requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to notify each governor how much more or less 
Federal funding in his or her state would receive each fiscal year 
following a decennial census if the census were adjusted for the 
undercount and the adjusted figures were used in grant allocation 
formulas.
  This bill is not directly related to the controversy over sampling. 
The sampling proposal made by the Bureau of the Census is one way to 
eliminate the undercount, but there are other less controversial 
methods. Not uncontroversial, but less so.
   Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries. I quote 
from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it 
came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar 
Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to 
the footnote) . . . And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own 
city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the ruler or ruling 
government to tax or raise an army.
  The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg 
in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they 
wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate 
apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was 
the foundation of the Great Compromise.
  The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2:

       Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among 
     the several States which may be included within this Union, 
     according to their respective numbers, which shall be 
     determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, 
     including those bound to Service for a term of years, and 
     excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other 
     persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three 
     years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United 
     States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in 
     such manner as they shall direct by law.

  Opponents of adjustment often say that the Constitution calls for an 
``actual enumeration'', and this requires an actual headcount rather 
than any statistical inference about those we know we miss every time. 
That seems to take the phrase out of context. I note that we have not 
taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned 
since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced 
with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system, 
but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that 
way.
  Statistical work in the 1940s demonstrated that we can estimate the 
undercount, the number of people the census misses. The estimate for 
1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to 
1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or 
more than four million people.
  More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The 
differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 4.4 percent 
for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific 
islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2 
percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and 
non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately 
missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress 
and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population. 
The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9 
percent in

[[Page 905]]

2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling.
   Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount issue. In 
1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at 
MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in 
planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960 
census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full 
enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask that my forward to the 
report from that conference be printed following my remarks, for it is, 
save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant.
  My hope is that if governors and other interested parties learn the 
financial consequences of the undercount, support may grow for 
correcting it. It is regrettable that we don't do it, simply because we 
should. But if a yearly reminder of how the undercount affects formula 
grant programs helps change some minds, it is worth the effort.
  I ask my colleagues for their support and I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill and additional material, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 166

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered federal formula grant.--The term ``covered 
     Federal formula grant'' means a grant awarded by the Federal 
     Government on the basis of a formula that provides for the 
     distribution of funds to States.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     SEC. 2. CALCULATIONS OF SHORTFALLS AND SURPLUS AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Determination of funding amounts.--As soon as 
     practicable after receiving the information concerning the 
     fiscal year immediately preceding the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the heads of appropriate Federal agencies, shall 
     determine, for the immediately preceding fiscal year--
       (A) the amount of funds made available for that fiscal year 
     for each covered Federal formula grant program; and
       (B) for each covered Federal formula grant program, the 
     amount distributed to each grant recipient.
       (2) Information.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than 120 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal 
     agency that administers a covered Federal formula grant 
     program shall submit to the Secretary--
       (A) the amount of funds made available for that program for 
     that fiscal year; and
       (B) for each State recipient of a covered Federal formula 
     grant, the amount distributed as a grant award under that 
     grant to that recipient.
       (b) Determinations for Formula Grant Programs that Received 
     the Greatest Amount of Funding.--Upon making the 
     determinations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     determine--
       (1) the 100 covered Federal formula grant programs that 
     received the greatest amounts of funding during the preceding 
     fiscal year; and
       (2) whether, on the basis of undercounting for the most 
     recent decennial census (as determined by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of the Census), any State recipient 
     of a grant award under paragraph (1) received an amount less 
     than or greater than the amount that the recipient would 
     otherwise have received if an adjustment to the grant award 
     had been made for that undercounting.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Upon making the determinations under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall prepare, for each State, 
     an annual report that includes--
       (A) a listing of any grant award under subsection (b)(1) 
     provided to that State that was an amount less than or 
     greater than amount that the State would otherwise have 
     received if an adjustment for undercounting referred to in 
     that subsection had been made; and
       (B) for each grant award listed under subparagraph (A), the 
     amount of the shortfall or surplus determined under 
     subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Distribution.--The Secretary shall provide to the 
     Governor of each State (or the equivalent official) a copy of 
     the report prepared under paragraph (1) for that State.
                                  ____


                     Social Statistics and the City

                           (By David M. Heer)


                                Foreword

       At one point in the course of the 1950's John Kenneth 
     Galbraith observed that it is the statisticians, as much as 
     any single group, who shape public policy, for the simple 
     reason that societies never really become effectively 
     concerned with social problems until they learn to measure 
     them. An unassuming truth, perhaps, but a mighty one, and one 
     that did more than he may know to sustain morale in a number 
     of Washington bureaucracies (hateful word!) during a period 
     when the relevant cabinet officers had on their own reached 
     very much the same conclusion--and distrusted their charges 
     all the more in consequence. For it is one of the ironies of 
     American government that individuals and groups that have 
     been most resistant to liberal social change have quite 
     accurately perceived that social statistics are all too 
     readily transformed into political dynamite, whilst in a 
     curious way the reform temperament has tended to view the 
     whole statistical process as plodding, overcautious, and 
     somehow a brake on progress. (Why must every statistic be 
     accompanied by detailed notes about the size of the 
     ``standard error''?)
       The answer, of course, is that this is what must be done if 
     the fact is to be accurately stated, and ultimately accepted. 
     But, given this atmosphere of suspicion on the one hand and 
     impatience on the other, it is something of a wonder that the 
     statistical officers of the federal government have with such 
     fortitude and fairness remained faithful to a high 
     intellectual calling, and an even more demanding public 
     trust.
       There is no agency of which this is more true than the 
     Bureau of the Census, the first, and still the most 
     important, information-gathering agency of the federal 
     government. For getting on, now, for two centuries, the 
     Census has collected and compiled the essential facts of the 
     American experience. Of late the ten-year cycle has begun to 
     modulate somewhat, and as more and more current reports have 
     been forthcoming, the Census has been quietly transforming 
     itself into a continuously flowing source of information 
     about the American people. In turn, American society has 
     become more and more dependent on it. It would be difficult 
     to find an aspect of public or private life not touched and 
     somehow shaped by Census information. And yet for all this, 
     it is somehow ignored. To declare that the Census is without 
     friends would be absurd. But partisans? When Census 
     appropriations are cut, who bleeds on Capitol Hill or in the 
     Executive Office of the President? The answer is almost 
     everyone in general, and therefore no one in particular. But 
     the result, too often, is the neglect, even the abuse, of an 
     indispensable public institution, which often of late has 
     served better than it has been served.
       The papers in this collection, as Professor Heer's 
     introduction explains, were presented at a conference held in 
     June 1967 with the avowed purpose of arousing a measure of 
     public concern about the difficulties encountered by the 
     Census in obtaining a full count of the urban poor, 
     especially perhaps the Negro poor. It became apparent, for 
     example, that in 1960 one fifth of nonwhite males aged 25-29 
     had in effect disappeared and had been left out of the Census 
     count altogether. Invisible men. Altogether, one tenth of the 
     non-white population had been ``missed.'' The ramifications 
     of this fact were considerable, and its implications will 
     suggest themselves immediately. It was hoped that a public 
     airing of the issue might lead to greater public support to 
     ensure that the Census would have the resources in 1970 to do 
     what is, after all, its fundamental job, that of counting all 
     the American people. As the reader will see, the scholarly 
     case for providing this support was made with considerable 
     energy and candor. But perhaps the most compelling argument 
     arose from a chance remark by a conference participant to the 
     effect that if the decennial census were not required by the 
     Constitution, the Bureau would doubtless never have survived 
     the economy drives of the nineteenth century. The thought 
     flashed: the full enumeration of the American population is 
     not simply an optional public service provided by government 
     for the use of sales managers, sociologists, and regional 
     planners. It is, rather, the constitutionally mandated 
     process whereby political representation in the Congress is 
     distributed as between different areas of the Nation. It is a 
     matter not of convenience but of the highest seriousness, 
     affecting the very foundations of sovereignty. That being the 
     case, there is no lawful course but to provide the Bureau 
     with whatever resources are necessary to obtain a full 
     enumeration. Inasmuch as Negroes and other ``minorities'' are 
     concentrated in specific urban locations, to undercount 
     significantly the population in those areas is to deny 
     residents their rights under Article I, Section 3 of the 
     Constitution, as well, no doubt, as under Section 1 of the 
     Fourteenth Amendment. Given the further, more recent practice 
     of distributing Federal, State, and local categorical aid on 
     the basis not only of the number but also social and economic 
     characteristics of local populations, the constitutional case 
     for full enumeration would seem to be further strengthened.

[[Page 906]]

       A sound legal case? Others will judge; and possibly one day 
     the courts will decide. But of one thing the conference had 
     no doubt: the common-sense case is irrefutable. America needs 
     to count all its people. (And reciprocally, all its people 
     need to make themselves available to be counted.) But if the 
     legal case adds any strength to the common-sense argument, it 
     remains only to add that should either of the arguments bring 
     some improvement in the future, it will be but another 
     instance of the generosity of the Carnegie Corporation, which 
     provided funds for the conference and for this publication.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 167. A bill to extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware 
Citizens Advisory Council and to authorize construction and operation 
of a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 
River, New York and Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


        upper delaware scenic and recreational river legislation

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
friend and colleague Senator Schumer, a bill to extend the 
authorization for the Upper Delaware River Citizens Advisory Committee 
and authorize the construction of a visitors center. The Upper Delaware 
is a 73-mile stretch of free flowing water between Hancock and 
Sparrowbush, New York along the Pennsylvania border. The area is home 
to the Zane Gray Museum and to Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, which is 
believed to be the oldest existing wire cable suspension bridge. The 
Upper Delaware is an ideal location for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, 
tubing, sightseeing, and fishing.
  In 1987 the Secretary of the Interior approved a management plan for 
the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which called for the 
development of a visitors center at the south end of the river 
corridor. It would be owned and constructed by the National Park 
Service. In 1993 New York State authorized a lease with the Park 
Service for the construction of a visitor center on State-owned land in 
the town of Deerpark in the vicinity of Mongaup. This bill allows the 
Secretary to enter into such a lease and to construct and operate the 
visitor center.
  Mr. President, the many thousands of visitors to this wonderful river 
would benefit greatly from a place to go to find out about the 
recreational opportunities, the history, and the flora and fauna of the 
river. This bill would move that process along to its conclusion. It 
would also reauthorize the Citizens Advisory Council which ensures that 
the views and concerns of local residents are kept in mind when 
management decisions are made. My colleague from New York and I ask for 
the support of other Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 167

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR UPPER DELAWARE 
                   CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       Section 704(f)(1) of the National Parks and Recreation Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 note; Public Law 95-625) is amended 
     in the last sentence by striking ``20'' and inserting ``30''.

     SEC. 2. VISITOR CENTER FOR UPPER DELAWARE SCENIC AND 
                   RECREATIONAL RIVER.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on September 29, 1987, the Secretary of the Interior 
     approved a management plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and 
     Recreational River, as required by section 704(c) of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 
     note; Public Law 95-625);
       (2) the management plan called for the development of a 
     primary visitor contact facility located at the southern end 
     of the river corridor;
       (3) the management plan determined that the visitor center 
     would be built and operated by the National Park Service;
       (4) section 704 of that Act limits the authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior to acquire land within the boundary 
     of the river corridor; and
       (5) on June 21, 1993, the State of New York authorized a 
     99-year lease between the New York State Department of 
     Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service for 
     construction and operation of a visitor center by the Federal 
     Government on State-owned land in the town of Deerpark, 
     Orange County, New York, in the vicinity of Mongaup, which is 
     the preferred site for the visitor center.
       (b) Authorization of Visitor Center.--Section 704(d) of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 
     note; Public Law 95-625) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Acquisition of Land.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Visitor center.--For the purpose of constructing and 
     operating a visitor center for the segment of the Upper 
     Delaware River designated as a scenic and recreational river 
     by section 3(a)(19) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1274(a)(19)), subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior may--
       ``(A) enter into a lease with the State of New York, for a 
     term of 99 years, for State-owned land within the boundaries 
     of the Upper Delaware River located at an area known as 
     `Mongaup' near the confluence of the Mongaup and Upper 
     Delaware Rivers in the State of New York; and
       ``(B) construct and operate the visitor center on the land 
     leased under subparagraph (A).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 168. A bill for the relief of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr.; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will provide compensation under the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program (VICP) to Tommy Sansone, Jr. Tommy was injured by 
a DPT vaccine in June 1994 and continues to suffer seizures and brain 
damage to this day. Tommy is the untended and helpless victim of a drug 
designed to help him. He needs our help because while the Vaccine 
Injury Program is meant to make reparations for these injuries, it is 
hampered by regulations that challenge the worthiest of claims.
  Back in 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Injury Act to take care of 
vaccine injuries because the shots that we required our children to get 
were not as safe as they could have been. Since the program was 
established, more than 1100 children have been compensated. Over the 
first ten years, a great percentage of those with seizures or brain 
damage or other symptoms were recognized to be DPT-injured, and, they 
were summarily compensated. But, by 1995, the Institutes of Medicine 
(IOM) and others concluded that because the symptoms had no unique 
clinical profile, they were not necessarily DPT injuries. So, HHS 
changed the definitions of encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain), 
and of vaccine injury. Those new definitions had unintended 
consequences. Now, the program that we set up to be expeditious and 
fair, uses criteria that are so strict that the fund from which these 
claims are paid pays fewer claims than before and the fund has 
ballooned to over $1.2 billion. As a result, families of children like 
Tommy find it nearly impossible to win a claim against the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program. The program is failing its mission.
  To be clear, VICP is not a medical insurance policy. The program is 
not designed to take care of those who cannot get or receive care. VICP 
is a compensation program, where the government makes amends for a 
failure in the system that it established. Claims are paid from a trust 
fund established from surcharges that are paid on each shot a child 
receives. The fund serves as an insurance policy against vaccine 
injuries. But, following the regulatory changes made in 1995, the 
government is not recognizing even the most legitimate of claims. We 
are failing the very children we are trying to protect.
  Over the years after his DPT shot (the combined shot for diphtheria, 
pertussis and tetanus), Tommy suffers severe seizures and from brain 
damage that has hampered his mental development. When he wakes in the 
morning or from a nap, either his mother or father is at his side 
waiting for the inevitable. Tommy's eyes tear and his face cringes in 
agony as his entire body is wracked with a muscle-clenching seizure. 
His parents hold him helplessly until the seizure subsides, sometimes 
for as long as five minutes. Tommy will then look into his mother's 
loving eyes, and say, ``No more, mommy. Make them stop.''

[[Page 907]]

  At the very least, Tommy's parents know that the strain of vaccine 
used on Tommy is now being phased out because of the rash of adverse 
reactions it caused. But this does nothing for Tommy or his parents, 
who have been in and out of countless hospitals, and consulted with 
doctors and experts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Health 
Resources and Services Administration. Their claim for compensation was 
dismissed in the Federal Court of Claims, but they and Tommy's doctor 
feel (and I agree with them) that they should have known more about the 
potential dangers of the DPT vaccine that Tommy received on June 1, 
1994. No one told them that there was a chance that the DPT vaccine 
could cause such trauma. No one told them about ``hot lots,'' an 
unofficial term for a batch of shots that has had an abundance of 
adverse reactions. The lot that Tommy received is known to have had 44 
such reactions from March-November 1994, including 2 deaths. These are 
reactions beyond the short-lived fever and rashes that accompany many 
vaccines. Their doctor didn't know about the availability of the 
``new'' acellular strain of pertussis vaccine that is replacing the 
whole cell version that had been used since the 1930s. Sure, it costs a 
couple of dollars more, but who wouldn't choose that for their child--
given the choice?
  Tommy's claim would have been covered before the 1995 changes, but 
that is not the case any longer. He's the victim of a bad DPT vaccine, 
yet his case continues to be denied because the first seizure didn't 
occur within 72 hours of the shot. It occurred 18 days later, and he 
suffers to this day. Tommy also has brain damage (encephalopathy) 
because of the DPT shot, but it doesn't fit that new definition either. 
He cried and moaned at a shrill pitch from the moment of the shot until 
his first seizure, but that doesn't matter either. For the first six 
months of his life, Tommy was in all ways normal, but for 4 and a half 
years since the DPT vaccine he and his family have suffered. As a 
parent and grandparent, I would do anything to protect my family from 
such pain and suffering. Tom Sansone, Sr. has done everything he knows 
how to help his son. Now he has turned to me because he knows I am in a 
position to help and I will not relent in my pursuit of relief for the 
Sansone family. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should take 
care of Tommy, but it doesn't. This bill will enable us to ensure that 
it does.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 168

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE-RELATED INJURY.

       (a) Cause of Injury.--In consideration of the petition 
     filed under subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.) (relating to the 
     National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) by the legal 
     representatives of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr., including the 
     claims contained in that petition that the injury described 
     in that petition was cause by a vaccine covered in the 
     Vaccine Injury Table specified in section 2114 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14) and given on June 1, 1994, such injury 
     is deemed to have been caused by such vaccine for the 
     purposes of subtitle 2 of title XXI of such Act.
       (b) Payment.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall pay compensation to Thomas J. Sansone, Jr. for the 
     injury referred to in subsection (a) in accordance with 
     section 2115 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, 
        and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 169. A bill to improve pay, retirement, and educational assistance 
benefits for members of the Armed Forces; and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


     the military recruiting and retention improvement act of 1999

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to introduce with 
my colleagues, Senators Robb, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Bingaman, 
Lieberman, Landrieu, Reed, and Daschle--The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999. I strongly believe that this bill 
represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the 
military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we 
the members of the Congress of the United States value their 
contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our 
obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to 
defend our Nation.
  The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the 
people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and 
one that understands the critical needs of military members and their 
families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to 
establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national 
security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the 
needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional 
military. Currently, all services are having difficulty in attracting 
and retaining qualified individuals. Seasoned, well-qualified personnel 
are leaving in alarming numbers. Specifically, the Navy is not making 
its recruiting goals. The Army cites pay and retirement, and overall 
quality of life as three of the top four reasons soldiers are leaving. 
The Air Force is currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is 
hampered by inadequate funding of the pay and retirement and quality of 
life accounts in meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All 
services, including the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing 
similar recruiting and retention problems. These shortfalls must be 
addressed if our Nation is to continue to have a highly capable, 
cutting edge military force.
  In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the 
Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that 
we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve 
in our armed forces, which is the goal of the legislation I am 
introducing today. Equally important, this bill, for the first time in 
a long time, addresses the immediate family members of our brave 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary 
of Defense Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding 
recruiting a strong, viable military force for the 21st Century. It 
also significantly assists in retaining the right military personnel 
for the 21st Century. If we fail today to address these key issues, now 
when we have the combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive 
budget outlook, and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have 
missed a key window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today 
goes a long way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have 
recently heard so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts 
who are greatly concerned about the readiness of our military force, 
especially as we look a few years ahead.
  Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense, 
former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and 
development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the 
number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the 
people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something 
different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles 
of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the people 
of our military are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as any 
force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better trained, 
and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted upon to 
defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This 
flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operation involved 40,000 troops 
from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 shops performed around 
the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were flown 
in four days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. And 
this massive effort was carried out without a single loss of American 
or British life!

[[Page 908]]

  In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the 
problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats 
and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in 
the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our 
military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over 
the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly 
technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their 
families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these 
operations are new and different from any past military operations, but 
they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our servicemen and 
women qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational 
opportunities as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing 
and changing health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing. 
Something is badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the 
Administration must work together to set things right.
  Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them, 
and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the 
changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security, 
and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a 
hearing I held at Ft. Gordon, Georgia last year, we recruit an 
individual, but we retain a family.
  Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United 
States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly 
explored. They all need to be addressed. The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 is but the first step. It is the 
beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's servicemen and women, 
and their families, are intelligent and are quick to recognize 
duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and military 
leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people--are 
leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even 
considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with 
firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these 
dangerous trends.
  This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into 
how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service 
in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to 
respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus 
on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and 
responding to the need to retain a family. Our legislation does so.
  Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today 
includes all three parts of the Department of Defense's proposed pay 
and retirement package. It incorporates some of the recommendations 
made by the Congressionally mandated Principi Commission, and it 
provides some additional innovative ideas for addressing these key 
personnel issues, now and into the future.
  First, our bill provides a 4.8% pay raise across-the-board for all 
military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the stated 
objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of bringing 
military pay more in line with private sector wages. This increase 
raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the 
annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and represents the 
largest increase in military pay since 1982. Furthermore, and also in 
keeping with DoD's current plans, we would provide an annual increase 
in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the 
ECI in each year from FY2001 to FY2006.
  Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our 
legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and 
enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises, 
amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the 
January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000.
  The third part of our legislation taken from the DOD plan is a 
revision in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would 
restore the 50 percent basic pay benefit for military members who 
retire at 20 years of service.
  I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits 
package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our 
legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report 
of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These 
provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in 
their recruiting and retention efforts.
  Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education 
benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter 
the armed services. This may be the single most important step this 
Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the 
Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in 
that direction.
  In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would 
increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and 
eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to 
contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the 
program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness 
of the GI Bill to potential recruits, and give our Service Secretaries 
a powerful recruiting incentive.
  Our legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations 
to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to 
one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is 
innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those 
young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we 
are trying to retain.
  The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 
includes a provision that would allow military members to participate 
in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants. 
Under this proposal, which adopts another recommendation of the 
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 
Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5 
percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or 
reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Another section of our legislation extends for three years--through 
December 31, 2002--the authority for the military services to pay a 
number of bonuses and special incentive pays that are fundamental to 
recruiting and retaining highly skilled military members. The authority 
to pay these bonuses and special pay expires at the end of this year. 
By renewing this authority now through the end of 2002, we will provide 
military managers with these crucial retention tools. By acting now and 
for three years, the military members themselves will have greater 
confidence that these pay incentives will be available.
  Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding 
that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us 
to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the 
President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more 
precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office 
over the next several weeks.
  I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to 
the well-being of our servicemen and women and their families. They are 
doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our country 
around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our 
commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure 
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in 
our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide 
hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform of our Services. The 
President has announced a very good plan, as has the distinguished 
Majority Leader. We must move forward, together, in addressing these 
important personnel and readiness issues.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Levin, and 
the

[[Page 909]]

other members of the Armed Services Committee who are co-sponsoring 
this legislation. We are all absolutely committed to the welfare of our 
servicemen and women and their families. They provide for us, and it is 
time for us to provide our obligation to them. I look forward to 
working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, and all of our colleagues 
on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead to honor that 
obligation. I know I speak for myself and all of my co-sponsors in 
pledging to do our utmost to achieve that goal.
  Mr. President, I now ask an unanimous consent that a summary and the 
text of the Military Recruitment and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 
be printed into the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 169

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Recruiting and 
     Retention Improvement Act of 1999''.
                      TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

     SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE AND RESTRUCTURING OF 
                   BASIC PAY.

       (a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Any adjustment 
     required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in 
     the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the 
     uniformed services by section 203(a) of such title to become 
     effective during fiscal year 2000 shall not be made.
       (b) January 1, 2000, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on 
     January 1, 2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members 
     of the uniformed services shall be increased by 4.8 percent.
       (c) Basic Pay Reform.--Effective on July 1, 2000, the rates 
     of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services 
     are as follows:
       

                        COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   6,594.30   6,810.30   6,953.10   6,993.30    7,171.80
O-7.............   5,479.50   5,851.80   5,851.50   5,894.40    6,114.60
O-6.............   4,061.10   4,461.60   4,754.40   4,754.40    4,772.40
O-5.............   3,248.40   3,813.90   4,077.90   4,127.70    4,291.80
O-4.............   2,737.80   3,333.90   3,556.20   3,606.04    3,812.40
O-3 \3\.........   2,544.00   2,884.20   3,112.80   3,364.80    3,525.90
O-2 \3\.........   2,218.80   2,527.20   2,910.90   3,000.00    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   1,926.30   2,004.90   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   7,471.50   7,540.80   7,824.60   7,906.20    8,150.10
O-7.............   6,282.00   6,475.80   6,669.00   6,863.10    7,471.50
O-6.............   4,976.70   5,004.00   5,004.00   5,169.30    5,791.20
O-5.............   4,291.80   4,420.80   4,659.30   4,971.90    5,286.00
O-4.............   3,980.40   4,251.50   4,464.00   4,611.00    4,758.90
O-3 \3\.........   3,702.60   3,850.20   4,040.40   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00  $10,655.1  $10,707.6  $10,930.2  $11,318.40
                                     0          0          0
O-9.............       0.00   9,319.50   9,453.60   9,647.70    9,986.40
O-8.............   8,503.80   8,830.20   9,048.00   9,048.00    9,048.00
O-7.............   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40    8,025.60
O-6.............   6,086.10   6,381.30   6,549.00   6,719.10    7,049.10
O-5.............   5,436.00   5,583.60   5,751.90   5,751.90    5,751.90
O-4.............   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70    4,808.70
O-3 \3\.........   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basic pay for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for
  level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
  Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
  Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
  of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
  $12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
  section 205 of title 37, United States Code. Nevertheless, basic pay
  for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for level V of
  the Executive Schedule.
\3\ Does not apply to commissioned officers who have been credited with
  over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant
  officer.


  COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
                   ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00  $3,364.80   $3,525.90
O-2E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   3,009.00    3,071.10
O-1E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   2,423.10    2,588.40
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $3,702.60  $3,850.20  $4,040.40  $4,200.30   $4,291.80
O-2E............   3,168.60   3,333.90   3,461.40   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   2,683.80   2,781.30   2,877.60   3,009.00    3,009.00
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90   $4,416.90
O-2E............   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00    3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            WARRANT OFFICERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   2,592.00   2,788.50   2,868.60   2,947.50   3,083.40
W-3..............   2,355.90   2,555.40   2,555.40   2,588.40   2,694.30
W-2..............   2,063.40   2,232.60   2,232.60   2,305.80   2,423.10
W-1..............   1,719.00   1,971.00   1,971.00   2,135.70   2,232.60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   3,217.20   3,352.80   3,485.10   3,622.20   3,753.60

[[Page 910]]

 W-3..............   2,814.90   2,974.20   3,071.10   3,177.00   3,298.20
W-2..............   2,555.40   2,852.60   2,749.80   2,844.30   2,949.00
W-1..............   2,332.80   2,433.30   2,533.20   2,634.00   2,734.80
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00  $4,475.10  $4,628.70  $4,782.90  $4,937.40
W-4..............   3,888.00   4,019.00   4,155.60   4,289.70   4,427.10
W-3..............   3,418.50   3,539.10   3,659.40   3,780.00   3,900.90
W-2..............   3,058.40   3,163.80   3,270.90   3,378.30   3,378.30
W-1..............   2,835.00   2,910.90   2,910.90   2,910.90   2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            ENLISTED MEMBERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\..........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
E-8..............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
E-7..............   1,765.80   1,927.80   2,001.00   2,073.00   2,147.70
E-6..............   1,518.90   1,678.20   1,752.60   1,824.30   1,899.30
E-5..............   1,332.60   1,494.00   1,566.00   1,640.40   1,714.50
E-4..............   1,242.90   1,373.10   1,447.20   1,520.10   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,171.50   1,260.60   1,334.10   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40
E-1..............  \5\ 1,005   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60
                         .60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\..........      $0.00  $3,015.30  $3,083.40  $3,169.80  $3,271.50
E-8..............   2,528.40   2,601.60   2,669.70   2,751.60   2,840.10
E-7..............   2,220.90   2,294.10   2,367.30   2,439.30   2,514.00
E-6..............   1,973.10   2,047.20   2,118.60   2,191.50   2,244.60
E-5..............   1,789.50   1,861.50   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20
E-4..............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40
E-1..............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\..........  $3,373.20  $3,473.40  $3,609.30  $3,744.00  $3,915.80
E-8..............   2,932.50   3,026.10   3,161.10   3,295.50   3,483.60
E-7..............   2,588.10   2,660.40   2,787.60   2,926.20   3,134.40
E-6..............   2,283.30   2,283.30   2,285.70   2,285.70   2,285.70
E-5..............   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20
E-4..............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,123.20   1,127.40
E-1..............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60  1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
  Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
  Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
  Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
  years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
  Code.
\5\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
  months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

     SEC. 102. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2006 AT 
                   ECI PLUS ONE-HALF PERCENT.

       Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 1009 of title 37, 
     United States Code, the percentage of the increase in the 
     rates of monthly basic pay that takes effect under that 
     section during each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 shall 
     be the percentage equal to the sum of one percent plus the 
     percentage increase calculated as provided under subsection 
     (a) of section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, for such 
     fiscal year (without regard to whether rates of pay under the 
     statutory pay systems are actually increased by the 
     percentage calculated under such section 5303(a) during such 
     fiscal year).

     SEC. 103. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO 
                   PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

       (a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002,''.
       (b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
     Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code, 
     are each amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending 
     Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``any 
     fiscal year beginning before October 1, 1998, and the 15-
     month period beginning on that date and ending on December 
     31, 1999'' and inserting ``the 15-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1999, and any 
     year beginning after December 31, 1999, and ending before 
     January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 104. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

       (a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically 
     Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain 
     High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
     Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2002''.
       (g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health 
     Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section 
     16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 105. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES, 
                   REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

       (a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section 
     2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.
       (b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section 
     302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.

[[Page 911]]

       (c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section 
     302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``December 31, 2002''.
                         TITLE II--RETIRED PAY

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR 
                   POST-JULY 31, 1986 MEMBERS RETIRING WITH LESS 
                   THAN 30 YEARS OF SERVICE.

       Section 1409(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 202. MODIFIED ``CPI-1'' COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

       Paragraph (3) of section 1401a(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--The Secretary shall 
     increase the retired pay of each member and former member who 
     first became a member of a uniformed service on or after 
     August 1, 1986, by the percent equal to the difference 
     between the percent determined under paragraph (2) and 1 
     percent, except that, if the percent determined under 
     paragraph (2) is less than 3 percent, the Secretary shall 
     increase the retired pay by the lesser of the percent so 
     determined or 2 percent.''.

     SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) Chapter 71 of title 
     10, United States Code, is further amended--
       (A) in section 1409(b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting thereof ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (B) in section 1410, by striking ``if--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``if increases in the 
     retired pay of the member or former member under section 
     1401a(b) of this title had been computed as provided in 
     paragraph (2) of that section (rather than under paragraph 
     (3) of that section).''
       (2)(A) The heading for section 1410 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986: 
       restoration of COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age 
       62''.

       (B) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986: restoration of 
              COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age 62.''.
       (b) Survivor Benefit Plan.--Chapter 73 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1447(6)(A), by striking ``(determined 
     without regard to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of 
     this title)'';
       (2) in section 1451(h), by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) in section 1452(c), by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.
                     TITLE III--THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN

     SEC. 301. PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

       (a) Authority.--Subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active 
       service

       ``(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) A member of the armed 
     forces in active service may participate in the Thrift 
     Savings Plan in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) An election to contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund 
     under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period provided 
     under section 8432(b) for individuals subject to this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Applicability of Thrift Savings Plan Provisions.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions 
     of this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter shall 
     apply with respect to members of the uniformed services 
     making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund as if such 
     members were employees within the meaning of section 
     8401(11).
       ``(c) Maximum Contribution From Basic Pay.--The amount 
     contributed by a member of the uniformed services for any pay 
     period out of basic pay may not exceed--
       ``(1) for any pay period 5 percent of such member's basic 
     pay for such pay period, plus
       ``(2) an amount equal to the amount of any enlistment or 
     reenlistment bonus paid to the member under section 308, 
     308a, or 308f of title 37 in connection with an enlistment 
     for active service.
       ``(d) Agency Contributions Prohibited.--No contribution 
     under section 8432(c) of this title may be made for the 
     benefit of a member of the uniformed services making 
     contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(e) Certain Transfers Not Considered Separations.--A 
     transfer of a member from one armed force to another armed 
     force without a break in active service of more than 30 days 
     shall not be considered to be a separation from service for 
     the purposes of establishing an entitlement of the member to 
     a withdrawal from the member's account under the Thrift 
     Savings Plan.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Executive Director, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this section.
       ``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `armed forces' has the meaning given the 
     term in subsection (a)(4) of section 101 of title 10;
       ``(2) the term `active service' has the meaning given the 
     term in subsection (d)(3) of such section; and
       ``(3) the term `basic pay' means basic pay that is payable 
     under section 204 of title 37.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 8440d 
     the following:


``8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active service.''.

     SEC. 302. NONDUPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 8432b(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each employee'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), each 
     employee'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4)
       ``(4) No contribution may be made under this section for a 
     period for which an employee made a contribution under 
     section 8440e.''.
                 TITLE IV--MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS

     SEC. 401. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   FULL-TIME EDUCATION.

       (a) Increase.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$528'' and 
     inserting ``$600''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$429'' and 
     inserting ``$488''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to educational assistance allowances paid for months 
     after September 1999. However, no adjustment in rates of 
     educational assistance shall be made under subsection (g) of 
     section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2000.

     SEC. 402. TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.

       (a) Repeals.--(1) Section 3011 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b).
       (2) Section 3012 of such title is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     shall apply to individuals whose initial obligated period of 
     active duty under section 3011 or 3012 of title 38, United 
     States Code, as the case may be, begins on or after such 
     date.
       (b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction 
     in the basic pay of an individual referred to in section 
     3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by reason of such 
     section 3011(b), or of any individual referred to in section 
     3012(c) of such title by reason of such section 3012(c), as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease 
     commencing with the first month beginning after such date, 
     and any obligation of such individual under such section 
     3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before 
     such date shall be deemed to be fully satisfied as of such 
     date.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``as soon as practicable'' and all that follows 
     through ``such additional times'' and inserting ``at such 
     times''.

     SEC. 403. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 3014 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary shall 
     pay''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection (b):
       ``(b)(1) When the Secretary determines that it is 
     appropriate to accelerate payments under the regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to paragraph (6), the Secretary may make 
     payments of basic educational assistance allowance under this 
     subchapter on an accelerated basis.
       ``(2) The Secretary may pay a basic educational assistance 
     allowance on an accelerated basis only to an individual 
     entitled to payment of the allowance under this subchapter 
     who has made a request for payment of the allowance on an 
     accelerated basis.
       ``(3) In the event an adjustment under section 3015(g) of 
     this title in the monthly rate of basic educational 
     assistance will occur during a period for which a payment of 
     an allowance is made on an accelerated basis under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount the allowance 
     otherwise payable under this subchapter for the period 
     without regard to the adjustment under that section; and
       ``(B) pay on the date of the adjustment any additional 
     amount of the allowance that is payable for the period as a 
     result of the adjustment.
       ``(4) The entitlement to a basic educational assistance 
     allowance under this subchapter of an individual who is paid 
     an allowance on

[[Page 912]]

     an accelerated basis under this subsection shall be charged 
     at a rate equal to one month for each month of the period 
     covered by the accelerated payment of the allowance.
       ``(5) A basic educational assistance allowance shall be 
     paid on an accelerated basis under this subsection as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the case of an allowance for a course leading to a 
     standard college degree, at the beginning of the quarter, 
     semester, or term of the course in a lump-sum amount 
     equivalent to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance 
     otherwise payable under this subchapter for the quarter, 
     semester, or term, as the case may be, of the course.
       ``(B) In the case of an allowance for a course other than a 
     course referred to in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) at the later of (I) the beginning of the course, or 
     (II) a reasonable time after the request for payment by the 
     individual concerned; and
       ``(ii) in any amount requested by the individual concerned 
     up to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise 
     payable under this subchapter for the period of the course.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of making payments of basic educational allowance on 
     an accelerated basis under this subsection. Such regulations 
     shall specify the circumstances under which accelerated 
     payments should be made and include requirements relating to 
     the request for, making and delivery of, and receipt and use 
     of such payments.''.

     SEC. 404. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authority To Transfer to Family Member.--Subchapter II 
     of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational 
       assistance

       ``(a) The Secretary may, for the purpose of enhancing 
     recruiting and retention, and at the Secretary's sole 
     discretion, permit an individual entitled to educational 
     assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer such 
     individual's entitlement to such assistance, in whole or in 
     part, to the individuals specified in subsection (b).
       ``(b) An individual's entitlement to educational assistance 
     may be transferred when authorized under subsection (a) as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To the individual's spouse.
       ``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
       ``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(c)(1) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     to educational assistance under this section shall--
       ``(A) designate the individual or individuals to whom such 
     entitlement is being transferred and the percentage of such 
     entitlement to be transferred to each such individual; and
       ``(B) specify the period for which the transfer shall be 
     effective for each individual designated under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(2) The aggregate amount of the entitlement transferable 
     by an individual under this section may not exceed the 
     aggregate amount of the entitlement of such individual to 
     educational assistance under this subchapter.
       ``(3) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     under this section may elect to modify or revoke the transfer 
     at any time before the use of the transferred entitlement. An 
     individual shall make the election by submitting written 
     notice of such election to the Secretary.
       ``(d)(1) The use of any entitlement transferred under this 
     section shall be charged against the entitlement of the 
     individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for 
     each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual 
     using entitlement transferred under this section shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this chapter in such use as if 
     such individual were entitled to the educational assistance 
     covered by the transferred entitlement in the individual's 
     own right.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child 
     shall complete the use of any entitlement transferred to the 
     child under this section before the child attains the age of 
     26 years.
       ``(e) In the event of an overpayment of educational 
     assistance with respect to an individual to whom entitlement 
     is transferred under this section, such individual and the 
     individual making the transfer under this section shall be 
     jointly and severally liable to the United States for the 
     amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of 
     this title.
       ``(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of this section. Such regulations shall specify the 
     manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a 
     transfer of entitlement under subsection (c)(3).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 3019 the following new item:

``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
                            TITLE V--REPORT

     SEC. 501. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON 
                   RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--On December 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
     that sets forth the Secretary's assessment of the effects 
     that the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     the Act are having on recruitment and retention of personnel 
     for the Armed Forces.
       (b) First Report.--The first report under this section 
     shall be submitted not later than December 1, 2000.

 The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999--Summary


                           military pay raise

       4.8% effective January 1, 2000.
       Pay raises for FY 2001-2006 ECI + 0.5%.


                            pay table reform

       Targeted raise--weighted to mid-career NCO/Officers.
       Minimum 4.8%.
       Maximum 10.3%.
       Effective July 1, 2000.


                          military retirement

       Restore 50% basic pay retirement benefit at 20 years of 
     service as proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs.


                    montgomery gi bill enhancements

       Eliminate $1200 contribution required of members who elect 
     to participate in the GI Bill.
       Provide Services with discretionary authority to permit 
     members to transfer benefits to immediate family members.
       Increase monthly GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 for 
     members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to $488 for 
     members who serve less than 3 years.
       Permit accelerated lump sum benefits for entire term, 
     semester or quarter, or for entire courses not leading to 
     college degree.


                          thrift savings plan

       Allow members to contribute up to 5% of basic pay, and all 
     or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the 
     Federal civilian employees Thrift Savings Plan.


        extension of critical bonus and special pay authorities

       Extend for three years (through December 31, 2002) 
     authority to pay bonuses and special pays critical to 
     recruiting and retention of military members. Authority to 
     pay these bonuses and special pays expires December 31, 1999 
     under current law.


                      annual reporting requirement

       Require DOD to report annually on the impact of these 
     programs on recruiting and retention.
       Critical Bonus and Special Pay Authorities Extended Through 
     December 31, 1999:
       Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.
       Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.
       Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.
       Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.
       Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.
       Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.
       Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.
       Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.
       Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending Period 
     of Active Service.
       Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.
       Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.
       Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically Short 
     Wartime Specialties.
       Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain High 
     Priority Units.
       Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health 
     Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.
       Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.
       Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.
       Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my support to the 
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. For the 
first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering 
significantly. We are now paying the price for asking our people to do 
much more with less and less. As the Service Chiefs have testified, the 
feedback from our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is clear and 
unambiguous. Low pay, the 40 percent retirement system, military health 
and education benefits that could stand a shot in the arm--we now have 
plenty of evidence these things are keeping us from retaining our best 
and brightest. Equally troubling, our recruiting picture across the 
services is dismal. These downward trends cannot continue. The Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns that ``there is no more shock 
absorbency left in the system,'' and further that if the trends 
continue, we will ``find ourselves in a nosedive that might cause 
irreparable damage to this great force.'' The Army and Air Force Chiefs 
of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps all agree that we are only five years away from a hollow 
force. Put simply, we are placing at risk the future readiness of the 
finest fighting force in the world.

[[Page 913]]

  Mr. President, this bill provides the resources to begin to reverse 
the steady downward spirals we've seen in military recruiting and 
retention. It is also a strong signal to our most important asset--our 
men and women in uniform and their families--that we are serious about 
taking care of them. In my view, it is nothing more than adequately 
compensating our people for the job they are already performing. And it 
is exactly the kind of ``fix'' we in the Congress can, and should, 
support.
  I would like to make one additional point. While we have many 
pressing longer-term concerns, such as modernizing and recapitalizing 
our forces for the next century and doing something about the billions 
of dollars of excess infrastructure the services continue to carry, we 
simply can't afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes 
to taking care of our people. To do otherwise places at risk our future 
readiness and everything we've worked for, like the ability to mount an 
operation like ``Desert Fox'' and execute it brilliantly. We can't let 
that happen.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cleland, 
Senator Robb, and a number of my colleagues today in introducing The 
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. Secretary 
Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs have told us that the 
single greatest challenge they face right now is recruiting and 
retaining the people we need to man our military services. This 
legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we continue to attract 
and retain the high quality people that make up our military services 
today.
  Just last month, the men and women of our Armed Forces demonstrated 
once again that they are by far the best trained, best equipped, best 
disciplined and most highly skilled and motivated military force in the 
world. Operation Desert Fox was a large-scale military operation that 
was carried out flawlessly. It involved 40,000 troops from bases 
virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed strike and support 
roles. Over 600 aircraft sorties were flown in 4 days, and 300 of these 
were night strike operations.
  General Zinni, the commander in charge of Operation Desert Fox, 
pointed out that even in peacetime an exercise of this scale is very 
dangerous and stressful. To have achieved all of the objectives of 
Operation Desert Fox without a single United States or British casualty 
and without any degradation of our ongoing efforts in Bosnia, Korea, 
and other critical areas around the world was truly remarkable.
  Mr. President, the key to the success of Operation Desert Fox--and 
the key to the strength and capability of our Armed Forces--is the men 
and women who serve in uniform. We must do everything we can to ensure 
that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to 
serve in our Armed Forces.
  Over the past year, there have been growing indications that the 
military services were beginning to have problems in both recruiting 
and retention, particularly retaining highly skilled mid-grade officers 
and enlisted whose skills are in demand in the private sector. To 
address these problems, last month Secretary Cohen and General Shelton 
announced a package of improvements in military pay and retirement 
benefits that will be part of President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 
budget. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee on January 5 
of this year, General Shelton and all of thee Joint Chiefs said that 
enactment of this package of pay and benefits was their highest 
priority.
  Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today 
includes all three parts of the Defense Department's pay and retirement 
package, as well as some of the key recommendations from the recent 
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance.
  First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise for all military 
members of 4.8 percent, effective January 1, 2000. This is slightly 
higher than the 4.4 percent recommended by Secretary Cohen and the 
Joint Chiefs, but it carries out their stated objective of increasing 
military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual 
increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This 4.8 percent increase 
will be the largest increase in military pay since 1982.
  In addition, our legislation calls for annual increases in military 
pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI in each 
year of the Future Years Defense Plan. Again, this reflects DOD's 
current plan, and is designed to bring military pay more in line with 
private sector wages as measured by the ECI.
  The second part of DOD's plan included in our legislation is a 
targeted pay raise that would be effective July 1, 2000. Taken in 
conjunction with the January 1 4.8-percent across-the-board pay 
increase, this targeted pay raise increases the pay of mid-grade 
officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotions points, 
between 4.8 and 10.3 percent.
  The third part of the DOD plan included in this legislation is a 
revision to the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986. This portion of 
the legislation would restore the 50-percent basic pay benefit for 
military members who retire at 20 years of service.
  In addition to the package of pay and retirement benefits proposed by 
Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, the legislation we are 
introducing today includes several key recommendations from the recent 
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance specifically designed to help the military 
services recruiting and retention efforts.
  The most important of these recommendations is a series of 
improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill. Education benefits are a very 
important attraction for young people entering the armed forces. Our 
legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 
per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service 
members to contribute $1,200 of their own money to participate in the 
program. Both of these changes were recommended by the Congressional 
Commission of Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance to 
increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential new recruits.
  The Commission also recommended, and our legislation includes, a 
provision to allow service members to transfer their earned GI bill 
benefits to one or more immediate family members. It is my view, Mr. 
President, that this will prove to be a very powerful recruiting and 
retention incentive.
  This legislation also includes a provision that would allow military 
members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to 
Federal civil servants. Under our proposal, which follows the 
recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and 
Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to 
contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of 
any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Finally, this legislation includes a very important provision that 
extends for 3 years--through December 31, 2002--the authority for the 
military services to pay a number of bonuses and special and incentive 
pays that are critical to recruiting and retaining highly skilled 
military members. Under current law, the authority to pay these bonuses 
and special pays runs out at the end of this year. Renewing this 
authority now through the end of 2002 will reassure military personnel 
managers--and military members themselves--that these crucial 
authorities will continue to be available to them.
  Mr. President, detailed costing of this legislation will have to be 
done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. In 
my view, however, the provisions contained in this legislation will not 
require us to increase the funding for national defense above the 
levels I understand will be proposed in President Clinton's FY2000-2006 
Future Years Defense Plan. We should be able to accommodate any 
increase in funding necessary for these initiatives from lower priority 
programs.

[[Page 914]]

  I believe this package of pay and benefits is fair and will ensure 
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in 
our armed forces. All of us are committed to the well-being of our 
military members and their families. There may be some aspects of this 
legislation that require improvement or modification, and that can be 
done as the Armed Services Committee begins to review this bill and any 
other bills that are introduced to address the concerns we all have in 
this area.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of the author of this 
legislation, Senator Max Cleland. Fortunately for the Senate and for 
the men and women of our armed forces, he will continue to serve as the 
Ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed 
Services Committee during the 106th Congress. Senator Robb of our 
Committee has also played an important role in drafting this 
legislation. Both Senator Cleland and Senator Robb have a tremendous 
commitment to the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and 
their families.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Cleland, 
Senator Robb, and all of the cosponsors of this legislation and with 
all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months 
ahead to secure enactment of this important legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us commend our troops for their 
superb performance. Their extraordinary efforts last year in Operation 
Desert Fox, Hurricane Mitch, Operation Provide Comfort, and in Kenya, 
and Tanzania highlighted only a few of their significant contributions 
to the Nation in 1998.
  America continues to rely heavily on its Armed Forces, and we want 
our service members and families to know how proud we in Congress are 
of their contributions to our country and to our national defense. We 
are deeply indebted to them for their service, and we have the highest 
respect for their dedication, their patriotism, and their courage.
  This past year once again demonstrated the importance of guaranteeing 
that our military forces are well prepared to meet any challenge. 
However, I am very concered about the future readiness of our Armed 
Forces. I am troubled by reports of declining readiness, poor 
retention, and recruiting shortfalls.
  Two years ago the Army reduced its recuiting standards, and now the 
Navy has followed suit. Secretary of the Navy Danzig has announced that 
the Navy is lowering its educational standards for new recruits. This 
and other reductions in personnel standards by the Navy are taking 
place because the Navy fell short of its recruiting goals last year for 
the first time since the draft ended in 1973. Secretary Danzig also 
recently announced that retention of Naval Officers is so low that the 
Navy will have 50 percent fewer officers than required to man its ships 
in the coming years. These are serious concerns that must be addressed, 
and this legislation does so.
  Congress must do all it can to provide for our men and women in the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They have worked hard for us. 
Now we must provide the support they need to do their jobs and care for 
their families.
  The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act is a 
substantial step toward meeting these urgent needs of our service 
members, and will encourage more of these highly skilled and well-
trained men and women to remain in the military ranks. I also hope that 
the provisions in this act will encourage more of the Nation's young 
men and women to join the military and serve their country in that way.
  Our proposal increases base pay for our troops.
  It contains pay table reforms and guaranteed pay raises above 
inflation.
  It restores equity to the military retirement system by providing 
active duty service members 50 percent retirement after 20 years of 
service.
  It allows service members to transfer hard-earned educational 
benefits to others in their family.
  It provides stability by extending authorities for bonus pay and 
special pay.
  I'm reminded of the words of President Kennedy during an address at 
the U.S. Naval Academy in August of 1963. That is what he said about a 
career in the Navy:

       I can imagine a no more rewarding career. And any man who 
     may be asked in this century what he did to make his life 
     worth while, I think can respond with a good deal of pride 
     and satisfaction: ``I served in the United States Navy.''

  My brother was a Navy man, but I'm sure that veterans of all the 
other services in those years felt the same way.
  I want to do all I can to see that our service men and women feel the 
same way today and on into the next century. These personnel issues are 
important, and Congress has to deal with them effectively and 
responsibly. The Military Recruiting and Retirement Improvement Act 
moves our Nation in the right direction, and I look forward to early 
and favorable action on it by the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cleland and 
Senator Levin for their leadership in developing and offering this 
bill, and I am pleased to join the other Democratic members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee in cosponsoring this initiative aimed 
at addressing the problem of attracting and retaining the right men and 
women in the right numbers for our military. The effectiveness of our 
military, and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national 
interests, must always be a priority concern of Congress, as the 
continuing challenges around the world today demonstrate. There are few 
things that we will do this year that are more important, because the 
security of our country rests squarely on the shoulders of the men and 
women that provide our defenses and protect our interests. The 
outstanding performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the 
American military remains more than equal to the task, and that we have 
what is unequivocally the number one force in the world. In fact, it 
may well be the best we have ever fielded. Even at the height of the 
cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult to 
see those units being able to routinely execute the range of complex 
operations with the expertise that our units today are doing.
  Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems, many of them 
serious. They include falling recruiting and retention of critical 
skills, aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable 
levels of reliability, a need for more support services for a force 
with a high percentage of married personnel, and frequent deployments. 
Some of these problems will get much more serious unless we act to fix 
them soon. The military Chiefs of Staff deserve credit for persevering 
in keeping these challenges to our readiness before us. President 
Clinton also deserves credit for his decision to increase the defense 
budget to address these important problems.
  But if this increase only fixes the worst of the short term readiness 
problems and diverts us from seriously addressing the hard long-term 
questions of readiness and modernization that face us, it could do us 
as much harm as good. And if it generates a partisan debate over who 
can increase the defense budget the most, we will be rightly criticized 
for trying to solve our increasingly complex security problems by 
throwing money at them, which makes no more sense as a response to our 
military problems than it did for our social problems.
  I think what we are spending money on is just as important as how 
much we are spending. First, we must demand 100 percent cost 
effectiveness, the elimination of waste and redundancy, and that 
includes closing down military facilities (bases and depots) that don't 
make military-economic sense anymore. Second, as we evaluate our 
readiness we must persistently ask, ready for what? What are the 
threats we face today and what are the emerging threats we will face 
tomorrow. If we do not develop and field the right organizations, 
weapons, and concepts to meet future challenges, and as a result fail 
to successfully meet one of

[[Page 915]]

those future challenges to our security, it will not matter much to 
remind ourselves how ready we were in 1999 when the threats are 
probably less than they will be then.
  As Under Secretary of Defense Gansler has pointed out, the money 
projected to be added to the defense budget, or any increase we can 
reasonably foresee, won't be enough to completely pay for both 
increasing current readiness and meeting the modernization requirements 
of all the Services. So it is extremely important that we take 
extraordinary measures to be sure that we are spending our money 
wisely.
  There is no doubt that spending our money to adequately and fairly 
compensate our military men and women is the wisest use of our defense 
dollars. Therefore I am very proud that we have recognized this fact by 
offering this bill outside the normal defense authorization process. 
Doing so signals the importance we place on our military personnel. I 
think it is a good bill. I support spending what is necessary. And I 
think we have gotten it mostly right.
  However, I consider this a good point of departure, not a final 
product. I believe we have not yet done all of the critical analysis 
necessary to know where the priority should go within the broad 
category of pay and allowances to most effectively attract and retain 
the right people. I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee will make 
this task our highest priority when it is referred to our committee for 
action. I am sure we will act in a completely bipartisan way to arrive 
at the best result possible. It is a proud bipartisan tradition of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that attracting, retaining, and 
providing adequately for our men and women in uniform is among our most 
important responsibilities.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues as an original 
cosponsor of Senator Cleland's Military Recruiting and Retention 
Improvement Act of 1999.
  I am glad we are introducing this bill today because it demonstrates 
our interest and support for one of the greatest needs of our fighting 
men and women--improved pay and benefits. As my colleagues know, this 
is one of the most serious issues likely to come before the Armed 
Services Committee this year.
  Last week, I attended my first hearing as a new member of the 
committee. I carefully listened to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they 
outlined their priorities for the fiscal year 2000 budget. Without 
exception, each named recruitment and retaining skilled personnel as 
their top priority. The Joint Chiefs asked us unequivocally to address 
this issue, and I believe the bill we introduce today places us on the 
proper path.
  This bill will make a difference to men and women when they are 
deciding to begin or continue a military career. The 4.8 percent pay 
increase will make their daily lives easier and more enjoyable. 
Reforming the pay table to provide increases in salaries for midcareer 
NCOs and officers will not only reward these dedicated men and women 
for the years they have served our country, but provide an incentive 
for them to continue their valued work. Renewing the various bonuses 
for three more years will let our men and women in uniform know that we 
realize and appreciate the sacrifices they make performing dangerous 
missions for months at a time far from home.
  Perhaps the most unique provisions of the Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act are the educational benefits. Military 
personnel would no longer have to contribute $1,200 to take advantage 
of the Montgomery GI bill and they would receive increased monthly 
benefits. In addition, the Service Secretaries would be given the 
discretion to allow military personnel who qualify to transfer their 
education benefit to a spouse or child. Education is vital in today's 
society, yet financing needed training is an enormous burden to 
shoulder. I believe that many of our men and women in uniform choose to 
leave the service because they must find a job which will allow them to 
pay for their children's education. With the provisions in this bill, 
military personnel can continue their careers and more readily afford 
the cost of educating their children.
  Mr. President, taking care of America's military personnel is one of 
the most serious responsibilities Congress has. Every day our men and 
women in uniform risk their lives to defend our country and the 
principles we champion. It is our obligation to let them know that we 
appreciate the sacrifices they make on our behalf. If we do not, the 
entire country will suffer.
  Finding the best ways to improve our troop's quality of life is a 
difficult and complex task. The Military Recruiting and Retention 
Improvement Act is a sound proposal, but it is only the beginning to a 
comprehensive solution. We will not find a solution if Democrats and 
Republicans do not work together. Indeed, care of America's troops has 
always been an issue in which we have been united and it is my sincere 
hope that this tradition can continue in the 106th Congress.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning 
the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act introduced today 
by my esteemed colleague, Senator Cleland. During the last session, the 
Joint Chiefs testified to the need for improving pay and retirement for 
military personnel as a means to improvement recruitment and retention 
of service members. This bill proposes some important steps to 
implement those needs, including the extension of critical bonus and 
special pay authorities, and deserves careful consideration by the 
members of the Senate. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the 
way to improve recruitment and retention goes beyond a bigger paycheck. 
Senator Cleland's bill includes an important provision directed toward 
other motivations to choose military service. I'm speaking of 
enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill for education benefits.
  Mr. President, this bill will provide major new educational benefits 
to service members and their families that will serve as an incentive 
to attract high quality recruits to the military. By improving the 
educational attainment of service personnel and their families, the 
nation stands to benefit in the long term with a better educated 
workforce. Surely, we are now able to observe the benefits of full GI 
bill assistance for veterans of World War II, the Korean War and the 
Vietnam war who were able to receive sufficient resource to complete 
college and postgraduate degree programs in compensation for military 
service. The nation as a whole has prospered by the talented and 
trained workforce who benefitted from the GI bill.
  Senator Cleland's bill goes beyond even those benefits which, I 
believe were only extended to service members themselves. According to 
the legislation proposed, the military services can choose to permit 
service members to transfer those educational benefits to immediate 
family members should they choose not to use them for themselves. 
Again, I believe the nation's labor force will benefit greatly from 
such flexibility, not to mention the families of our men and women in 
uniform.
  Educational benefits provided by the Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act would be increased to reflect the rising cost 
of education. Monthly benefits would increase from $528 to $600 per 
month for member who serve at least three years, and from $429 to $498 
per month for those who serve less than three years. Lump sum tuition 
assistance could also be provided under certain circumstances.
  Mr. President, these matters are really matters requiring bipartisan 
cooperation in the Congress that will benefit our service personnel and 
the Nation. I understand that Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, has introduced similar legislation to that offered 
by Senator Cleland, myself, and others. I am hopeful that we will 
review these bills in detail in the Armed Services Committee to 
determine the best way to proceed to improve recruitment and retention 
that lies at the heart of both bills. As I indicated, recruitment and 
retention are affected by a wide variety of causes, only some of which 
may be

[[Page 916]]

financial. Senator Cleland's bill calls for an annual report on the 
impact of the provisions of the bill on recruitment and retention. I 
believe such an assessment is required. I believe as well, that before 
the Senate approves legislation, however, it needs to have a more 
informed view of factors affecting recruitment and retention and of the 
potential impact of increasing assistance to military personnel on pay 
and benefits provided to defense and government civilian employees. A 
report is due soon from the Department of Defense addressing some of 
those issues. I urge my colleague to pay close attention to its 
findings and seek answers to the additional questions I have posed in 
determining how to proceed with legislation that meets national 
security and budgetary requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. 
        Mack):
  S. 170. A bill to permit revocation by members of the clergy of their 
exemption from Social Security coverage; to the Committee on Finance.


          open season for clergy to enroll in social security

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing a 
bill to allow qualified members of the clergy of all faiths to 
participate in the Social Security program.
  This bill would provide a two-year ``open season'' during which 
certain ministers who previously had filed for an exemption from Social 
Security coverage could revoke their exemption. These members of the 
clergy would become subject to self-employment taxes, and their 
earnings would be credited for Social Security and Medicare purposes.
  Before 1968, a minister was exempt from Social Security coverage 
unless he or she chose to elect coverage. Since 1968, ministers have 
been covered by Social Security unless they file an irrevocable 
exemption with the Internal Revenue Service, usually within two years 
of beginning their ministry.
  On two other occasions, in 1977 and again in 1986, ministers were 
given a similar opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social 
Security coverage. Despite the existence of these brief ``open season'' 
periods, many exempt ministers did not take advantage of or have not 
had the opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social Security 
coverage. Because the exemption from Social Security is irrevocable, 
there is no way for them to gain access to the program under current 
law.
  Only an ``individual who is a duly ordained, commissioned, or 
licensed minister of a church, or a member of a religious order who has 
not taken a vow of poverty,'' would be able to revoke his or her 
exemption from Social Security, under my bill. Of course, this measure 
would not permit ministers who already have reached retirement age to 
gain access to the Social Security program.
  This bill primarily would benefit modestly paid clergy, who are among 
the most likely to need Social Security benefits upon retirement. Many 
chose not to participate in the Social Security program early in their 
careers, before they fully understood the ramifications of filing for 
an exemption.
  If enacted, this measure would raise about $45 million over the next 
five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO has 
scored the bill as a revenue raiser and, as a result, it will require 
no budget offset. Over the long-term, the legislation would cost money, 
but I do not expect its costs to be that significant because CBO has 
estimated that only about 3,500 members of the clergy would exercise 
the option that this bill provides.
  The need for this legislation was brought to my attention by the 
distinguished bishop in Manchester, New Hampshire, Reverend Bishop 
O'Neil. He made me aware of the hardships facing individual ministers 
who may or may not have any retirement income. The bill also has the 
endorsement of the U.S. Catholic Conference.
  I want to thank my principal cosponsors, Senators Moynihan and Mack, 
for their support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also point 
out that this measure is identical to Title 8 of H.R. 3433, the Ticket-
to-Work Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410 
to 1 last June.
  In closing, this bill gives members of the clergy a limited 
opportunity to enroll in the Social Security system, similar to those 
provided by Congress in 1977 and 1986. Mr. President, I hope that all 
of my colleagues will support this legislation, which is so important 
to a number of clergy in the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 170

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REVOCATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OF EXEMPTION 
                   FROM SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1402(e)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any exemption which has been 
     received under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code by a duly 
     ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, a 
     member of a religious order, or a Christian Science 
     practitioner, and which is effective for the taxable year in 
     which this Act is enacted, may be revoked by filing an 
     application therefor (in such form and manner, and with such 
     official, as may be prescribed in regulations made under 
     chapter 2 of such Code), if such application is filed no 
     later than the due date of the Federal income tax return 
     (including any extension thereof) for the applicant's second 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 1999. Any such 
     revocation shall be effective (for purposes of chapter 2 of 
     such Code and title II of the Social Security Act), as 
     specified in the application, either with respect to the 
     applicant's first taxable year beginning after December 31, 
     1999, or with respect to the applicant's second taxable year 
     beginning after such date, and for all succeeding taxable 
     years; and the applicant for any such revocation may not 
     thereafter again file application for an exemption under such 
     section 1402(e)(1). If the application is filed after the due 
     date of the applicant's Federal income tax return for a 
     taxable year and is effective with respect to that taxable 
     year, it shall include or be accompanied by payment in full 
     of an amount equal to the total of the taxes that would have 
     been imposed by section 1401 of such Code with respect to all 
     of the applicant's income derived in that taxable year which 
     would have constituted net earnings from self-employment for 
     purposes of chapter 2 of such Code (notwithstanding paragraph 
     (4) or (5) of section 1402(c) of such Code) but for the 
     exemption under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to service performed (to the extent specified in such 
     subsection) in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999, and with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable 
     under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the 
     wages and self-employment income of any individual for months 
     in or after the calendar year in which such individual's 
     application for revocation (as described in such subsection) 
     is effective (and lump-sum death payments payable under such 
     title on the basis of such wages and self-employment income 
     in the case of deaths occurring in or after such calendar 
     year).

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Bob 
Smith of New Hampshire, in introducing a bill to allow certain members 
of the clergy who are currently exempt from Social Security an open 
season to ``opt in.''
  Under section 1402 of the Internal Revenue Code, a member of the 
clergy who is conscientiously, or because of religious principles, 
opposed to participation in a public insurance program generally, may 
elect to be exempt from Social Security coverage and payroll taxes by 
filing an application of exemption with the Internal Revenue Service 
within two years of beginning the ministry. To be eligible for the 
exemption, the member of the clergy must be an ``individual who is a 
fully ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, or a 
member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of poverty.'' Once 
elected this exemption is irrevocable.
  This legislation would allow members of the clergy who are not 
eligible for Social Security a two-year open season in which they could 
revoke their exemption. At the time of exemption, many clergy did not 
fully understand the ramifications of their actions, and it is not 
until later in life, when they are blocked from coverage, that they 
realize their need for Social

[[Page 917]]

Security and Medicare. This decision to ``opt in'' would be irrevocable 
and all post-election earnings would be subject to the payroll tax and 
credited for the purposes of Social Security and Medicare.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would 
affect approximately 3,500 members of the clergy and would increase 
revenues by about $45 million over the next five years. Similar 
legislation was passed both in the 1977 Social Security Amendments 
(Section 316) and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Section 1704).
  This bill has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Conference 
and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is a simple but 
much-needed measure, and I urge every member of the Senate to support 
it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Cleland).
  S. 171. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the concentration 
of sulfur in gasoline used in motor vehicles; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


           the acid deposition and ozone control act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 172. A bill to reduce acid deposition under the Clean Air Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                     the clean gasoline act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills 
which will make significant reductions in the pollutants which most 
degrade our national air quality. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control 
Act of 1999 and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would reduce sulfur 
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions through national ``cap and trade'' 
programs, and reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, respectively.
  We have come a long way since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 
Since that last reauthorization effort, we have successfully reduced 
emissions of the pollutants we set out to regulate and tremendously 
expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of major 
environmental problems such as acid deposition, ozone pollution, 
decreased visibility, and eutrophication of coastal waters. We can be 
proud of these accomplishments, but we have a long way to go yet. Since 
1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage to 
human health and sensitive ecosystems. We have also learned that 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years 
ago, are significant contributors to our nation's many air quality 
deficiencies. And finally, we have demonstrated that legislation 
containing regulatory flexibility and market incentives is preferable 
to the traditional ``command and control'' approach. My bills seek to 
build upon this new body of knowledge by combining the best and most 
current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most 
effective and efficient regulatory framework.
  The scientific data indicate that the 1990 Amendments did not go far 
enough to prevent continued human health and ecosystem damage from 
SO2 and NOX. We now know that ozone pollution, 
caused in large part by NOX emissions, can have a terrible 
effect on human respiratory functions. The Harvard University School of 
Public Health's 1996 study of ozone pollution established a strong link 
between ground level ozone pollution and 30,000-50,000 emergency room 
visits during the 1993 and 1994 ozone seasons. Ecosystems continue to 
suffer, too. The 1998 report of the National Acid Precipitation 
Assessment Program (NAPAP) indicates that sulfate concentrations of 
surface waters in the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been 
increasing steadily for more than a decade, making for an increasingly 
inhospitable environment for trout and other fish species. There are 
other types of problems, too. Visitors to our nation's national parks 
and wilderness areas find that it is more difficult than ever before to 
enjoy these scenic vistas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see 
through the haze which clogs the air in our national parks.
  Scientists have produced volumes of scientific literature on ozone, 
acid deposition, regional haze, and other air quality problems over the 
past decade. We now know much more about the causes of these problems 
than we did in 1990. We know that NOX emissions, which we 
underestimated as a cause of air pollution, in fact play an important 
role in the formation of ground level ozone, acide deposition, and 
nitrogen deposition. We know that sulfur dioxide not only contributes 
significantly to acid deposition, but also to reduced visibility in our 
great scenic vistas.
  The most recent NAPAP report reflects this changing body of 
knowledge. The NAPAP report notes that NOX make a highly 
significant contribution to the occurrence of acid deposition and 
nitrogen saturation on both land and water. According to NAPAP, a 
majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from high acidity 
levels first detected decades ago. Forests, streams, and rivers outside 
of New York, in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great Smoky Mountains 
of Tennessee, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of 
California are also now showing the effects of acidification and 
nitrogen saturation.
  And mountains are not the only ecosystems affected. The Ecological 
Society of America, the nation's leading professional society of 
ecologists, issued a report in late 1997 which notes that airborne 
deposition of nitrogen accounts for a significant percentage of the 
nitrogen content of coastal water bodies stretching from the Gulf Coast 
up and around the entire length of the eastern seaboard. The Chesapeake 
Bay is believed to receive 27 percent of its nitrogen load directly 
from the atmosphere. For Tampa Bay, the figure is 28 percent. For the 
coastal waters of the Newport River in North Carolina, more than 35 
percent.
  Clearly, any serious effort to address these problems must address 
NOX emissions and further reduce SO2 emissions. 
My bills address the major sources of NOX and 
SO2. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1998 would 
affect ``stationary sources'' of NOX and SO2, 
mainly electric utilities, and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would 
affect ``mobile sources'', mainly cars and trucks, of NOx and other 
tailpipe emissions.


 Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act: Controlling Stationary Sources

  When we designed the SO2 Allowance Program in 1990, our 
task was simplified by the fact that over 85 percent of SO2 
emissions originated in fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Utility 
emissions account for just under 30 percent of total NOX 
emissions, a smaller share, but large enough to merit attention. My 
bill establishes a year-round cap-and-trade program for NOX 
emissions from the utility sector and mandates a further 50 percent cut 
in emissions of SO2 through the existing cap and trade 
program. Because of the human health risks of urban ozone pollution 
during the summer months, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act 
requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each ton of 
NOX emitted between May and September. During the remainder 
of the year, only one allowance is required to produce one ton of 
NOX emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make 
the greatest reductions during the summer, when the collective risk to 
human health from these emissions is higher.
  In light of the impressive success and cost effectiveness of the cap 
and trade program which regulates SO2, the Acid Deposition 
and Ozone Control Act is designed to build onto it as seamlessly as 
possible by establishing a ``Phase III'' under the existing program. 
Under the proposed Phase III, total utility emissions of SO2 
would be reduced to just under 4.5 million tons per year, significantly 
reducing acid deposition and improving visibility in our Nation's 
scenic vistas.


       The Clean Gasoline Act of 1999: Addressing Mobile Sources

  This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur 
content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill

[[Page 918]]

would extend the so-called California gasoline sulfur standard 
nationwide. The benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur would be dramatic 
and virtually immediate.
  The presence of sulfur in gasoline increases vehicle emissions 
because sulfur poisons the catalytic converter used in the vehicle's 
emissions control system. Sulfur is a pollutant only: its presence (or 
absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought 
to remove lead from gasoline to make possible the introduction of 
catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur 
is a catalyst poison, too. All vehicles in the national fleet with 
catalytic converters--virtually all vehicles--produce higher levels of 
NOX because of the high levels of sulfur in the gasoline 
they burn.
  The cost of gasoline would rise under this bill--by a nickel a gallon 
at the retail level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year 
that achieves 15 miles per gallon, the cost of the Clean Gasoline Act 
would be $50 annually. Keep in mind, however, that gasoline prices, 
adjusted for inflation, are cheaper now than they have been at any time 
since 1950, the beginning point of our analysis. And the benefits to 
human health and the environment of reducing gasoline sulfur far 
outweigh this modest cost.
  A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control 
Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur levels to 
40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air 
quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from 
our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to 
removing 3 million vehicles from its streets. We must not pass up the 
opportunity to make such large gains in emissions reductions for such a 
minor cost.
  As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in 
enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO2 
Allowance Program established by that legislation has achieved 
extraordinary benefits at program compliance costs less than half of 
initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The 
current science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in 
1990 in setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have 
introduced endeavor to build upon our accomplishments thus far, and to 
begin the work which remains to be done. I encourage my colleagues to 
join myself and Mr. Schumer in sponsoring the Acid Deposition and Ozone 
Control Act of 1999, and to join myself and Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Jeffords in sponsoring the 
Clean Gasoline Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 171

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Gasoline Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the National Air Quality and Emissions 
     Trends Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, dated 
     1996, motor vehicles account for a major portion of the 
     emissions that degrade the air quality of the United States: 
     49 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, 26 percent of 
     emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
     smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10), and 78 
     percent of carbon monoxide emissions;
       (2)(A) failure to control gasoline sulfur concentration 
     adversely affects catalytic converter function for all 
     vehicles in the national vehicle fleet; and
       (B) research performed collaboratively by the auto and oil 
     industries demonstrates that when sulfur concentration in 
     motor vehicle gasoline is reduced from 450 parts per million 
     (referred to in this section as ``ppm'') to 50 ppm--
       (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 18 percent;
       (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 19 percent; 
     and
       (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 8 percent;
       (3)(A) recent studies conducted by the Association of 
     International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Coordinating 
     Research Council confirm that sulfur in vehicle fuel impairs 
     to an even greater degree the emission controls of Low-
     Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section as ``LEVs'') 
     and Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section 
     as ``ULEVs'');
       (B) because sulfur-induced impairment of advanced 
     technology emission control systems is not fully reversible 
     under normal in-use driving conditions, a nationwide, year-
     round sulfur standard is necessary to prevent impairment of 
     vehicles' emission control systems as the vehicles travel 
     across State lines;
       (C) industry research on LEVs and ULEVs demonstrates that 
     when gasoline sulfur concentration is lowered from 330 ppm to 
     40 ppm--
       (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 34 percent;
       (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent; 
     and
       (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 51 percent;
       (D) failure to control sulfur in gasoline will inhibit the 
     introduction of more fuel-efficient technologies, such as 
     direct injection engines and ``NOX trap'' after-
     treatment technology, which require fuel with a very low 
     concentration of sulfur;
       (E) the technology for removing sulfur from fuel during the 
     refining process is readily available and currently in use; 
     and
       (F) the reduction of sulfur concentrations in fuel to the 
     level required by this Act is a cost-effective means of 
     improving air quality;
       (4)(A) gasoline sulfur levels in the United States--
       (i) average between 300 and 350 ppm and range as high as 
     1000 ppm; and
       (ii) are far higher than the levels allowed in many other 
     industrialized nations, and higher than the levels allowed by 
     some developing nations;
       (B) the European Union recently approved a standard of 150 
     ppm to take effect in 2000, to be phased down to 30 through 
     50 ppm by 2005;
       (C) Japan has a standard of 50 ppm; and
       (D) gasoline and diesel fuel in Australia, New Zealand, 
     Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Finland have significantly 
     lower sulfur concentrations than comparable gasoline and 
     diesel fuel in the United States;
       (5)(A) California is the only State that regulates sulfur 
     concentration in all gasoline sold; and
       (B) in June 1996, California imposed a 2-part limitation on 
     sulfur concentration in gasoline: a 40 ppm per gallon 
     maximum, or a 30 ppm per gallon annual average with an 80 ppm 
     per gallon maximum;
       (6)(A) a 1998 regulatory impact analysis by the California 
     Air Resources Board reports that air quality improved 
     significantly in the year following the introduction of low 
     sulfur gasoline; and
       (B) the California Air Resources Board credits low sulfur 
     gasoline with reducing ozone levels by 10 percent on the 
     South Coast, 12 percent in Sacramento, and 2 percent in the 
     Bay Area; and
       (7)(A) reducing sulfur concentration in gasoline to the 
     level required by this Act is a cost-effective pollution 
     prevention measure that will provide significant and 
     immediate benefits; and
       (B) unlike vehicle hardware requirements that affect only 
     new model years, sulfur control produces the benefits of 
     reduced emissions of air pollutants across the vehicle fleet 
     immediately upon implementation.

     SEC. 3. SULFUR CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GASOLINE.

       (a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
       ``(o) Sulfur Concentration Requirements for Gasoline.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective 
     beginning 4 years after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, a person shall not manufacture, sell, supply, 
     offer for sale or supply, dispense, transport, or introduce 
     into commerce motor vehicle gasoline that contains a 
     concentration of sulfur that is greater than 40 parts per 
     million per gallon of gasoline.
       ``(B) Alternative method of measuring compliance.--A person 
     shall not be considered to be in violation of paragraph (1) 
     if the person manufactures, sells, supplies, offers for sale 
     or supply, dispenses, transports, or introduces into 
     commerce, during any 1-year period, motor vehicle gasoline 
     that contains a concentration of sulfur that is greater than 
     40 but less than or equal to 80 parts per million per gallon 
     of gasoline, if the average concentration of sulfur in the 
     motor vehicle gasoline manufactured, sold, supplied, offered 
     for sale or supply, dispensed, transported, or introduced 
     into commerce by the person during the period is less than 30 
     parts per million per gallon of gasoline.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this paragraph.

[[Page 919]]

       ``(2) Lower sulfur concentration.--
       ``(A) Report.--
       ``(i) Initial report.--Not later than 6 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     submit to Congress a report that documents the effects of use 
     of low sulfur motor vehicle gasoline on urban and regional 
     air quality.
       ``(ii) Followup report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the initial report under clause (i), the 
     Administrator shall submit a report updating the information 
     contained in the initial report.
       ``(B) Regulation.--After the date of the initial report 
     under subparagraph (A)(i), the Administrator may promulgate a 
     regulation to establish maximum and average allowable sulfur 
     concentrations in motor vehicle gasoline that are lower than 
     the concentrations specified in paragraph (1) if the 
     Administrator determines that--
       ``(i) research conducted after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection indicates that significant air quality 
     benefits would result from a reduction in allowable sulfur 
     concentration in motor vehicle gasoline; or
       ``(ii) advanced vehicle technologies have been developed 
     that can significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants 
     from motor vehicles but that require motor vehicle gasoline 
     with a lower concentration of sulfur than that specified in 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Penalties and Injunctions.--Section 211(d) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (n)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and (n)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(n), and (o)''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 172

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Acid Deposition and Ozone 
     Control Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) reductions of atmospheric nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide from utility plants, in addition to the reductions 
     required under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
     are needed to reduce acid deposition and its serious adverse 
     effects on public health, natural resources, building 
     structures, sensitive ecosystems, and visibility;
       (2) nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to the 
     development of fine particulates, suspected of causing human 
     mortality and morbidity to a significant extent;
       (3) regional nitrogen oxide reductions of 50 percent in the 
     Eastern United States, in addition to the reductions required 
     under the Clean Air Act, may be necessary to protect 
     sensitive watersheds from the effects of nitrogen deposition;
       (4) without reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide, the number of acidic lakes in the Adirondacks in the 
     State of New York is expected to increase by up to 40 percent 
     by 2040; and
       (5) nitrogen oxide is highly mobile and can lead to ozone 
     formation hundreds of miles from the emitting source.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize the current scientific understanding that 
     emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, and the acid 
     deposition resulting from emissions of nitrogen oxide and 
     sulfur dioxide, present a substantial human health and 
     environmental risk;
       (2) to require reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide emissions;
       (3) to support the efforts of the Ozone Transport 
     Assessment Group to reduce ozone pollution;
       (4) to reduce utility emissions of nitrogen oxide by 70 
     percent from 1990 levels; and
       (5) to reduce utility emissions of sulfur dioxide by 50 
     percent after the implementation of phase II sulfur dioxide 
     requirements under section 405 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7651d).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Affected facility.--The term ``affected facility'' 
     means a facility with 1 or more combustion units that serve 
     at least 1 electricity generator with a capacity equal to or 
     greater than 25 megawatts.
       (3) NOX allowance.--The term ``NOX 
     allowance'' means a limited authorization under section 4(3) 
     to emit, in accordance with this Act, quantities of nitrogen 
     oxide.
       (4) MMBTU.--The term ``mmBtu'' means 1,000,000 British 
     thermal units.
       (5) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Nitrogen Oxide 
     Allowance Program established under section 4.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the 48 contiguous 
     States and the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 4. NITROGEN OXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a 
     program to be known as the ``Nitrogen Oxide Allowance 
     Program''.
       (2) Scope.--The Program shall be conducted in the 48 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
       (3) NOX allowances.--
       (A) Allocation.--The Administrator shall allocate under 
     paragraph (4)--
       (i) for each of calendar years 2002 through 2004, 5,400,000 
     NOX allowances; and
       (ii) for calendar year 2005 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 3,000,000 NOX allowances.
       (B) Use.--Each NOX allowance shall authorize an 
     affected facility to emit--
       (i) 1 ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months of 
     October, November, December, January, February, March, and 
     April of any year; or
       (ii) \1/2\ ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months 
     of May, June, July, August, and September of any year.
       (4) Allocation.--
       (A) Definition of total electric power.--In this paragraph, 
     the term ``total electric power'' means all electric power 
     generated by utility and nonutility generators for 
     distribution, including electricity generated from solar, 
     wind, hydro power, nuclear power, cogeneration facilities, 
     and the combustion of fossil fuel.
       (B) Allocation of allowances.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate annual NOX allowances to each of the 
     States in proportion to the State's share of the total 
     electric power generated in all of the States.
       (C) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of each State's NOX 
     allowance allocation--
       (i) by December 1, 2000, for calendar years 2002 through 
     2004;
       (ii) by December 1, 2002, for calendar years 2005 through 
     2007; and
       (iii) by December 1 of each calendar year after 2002, for 
     the calendar year that begins 61 months thereafter.
       (5) Intrastate distribution.--
       (A) In general.--A State may submit to the Administrator a 
     report detailing the distribution of NOX 
     allowances of the State to affected facilities in the State--
       (i) not later than September 30, 2001, for calendar years 
     2002 through 2004;
       (ii) not later than September 30, 2003, for calendar years 
     2005 through 2012; and
       (iii) not later than September 30 of each calendar year 
     after 2013, for the calendar year that begins 61 months 
     thereafter.
       (B) Action by the administrator.--If a State submits a 
     report under subparagraph (A) not later than September 30 of 
     the calendar year specified in subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator shall distribute the NOX allowances 
     to affected facilities in the State as detailed in the 
     report.
       (C) Late submission of report.--A report submitted by a 
     State after September 30 of a specified year shall be of no 
     effect.
       (D) Distribution in absence of a report.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to subsection (e), if a State does 
     not submit a report under subparagraph (A) not later than 
     September 30 of the calendar year specified in subparagraph 
     (A), the Administrator shall, not later than November 30 of 
     that calendar year, distribute the NOX allowances 
     for the calendar years specified in subparagraph (A) to each 
     affected facility in the State in proportion to the affected 
     facility's share of the total electric power generated in the 
     State.
       (ii) Determination of facility's share.--In determining an 
     affected facility's share of total electric power generated 
     in a State, the Administrator shall consider the net electric 
     power generated by the facility and the State to be--

       (I) for calendar years 2002 through 2004, the average 
     annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility 
     and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1997 through 
     1999;
       (II) for calendar years 2005 through 2012, the average 
     annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility 
     and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1999 through 
     2001; and
       (III) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, the amount of electric power generated, by the 
     facility and the State, respectively, in the calendar year 5 
     years previous to the year for which the determination is 
     made.

       (E) Judicial review.--A distribution of NOX 
     allowances by the Administrator under subparagraph (D) shall 
     not be subject to judicial review.
       (b) NOX Allowance Transfer System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate a 
     NOX allowance system regulation under which a 
     NOX allowance allocated under this Act may be 
     transferred among affected facilities and any other person.
       (2) Establishment.--The regulation shall establish the 
     NOX allowance system under this section, including 
     requirements for the allocation, transfer, and use of 
     NOX allowances under this Act.
       (3) Use of noX allowances.--The regulation 
     shall--
       (A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance 
     with paragraph (5)) of any NOX allowance before 
     the calendar year for which the NOX allowance is 
     allocated; and
       (B) provide that the unused NOX allowances shall 
     be carried forward and added to

[[Page 920]]

     NOX allowances allocated for subsequent years.
       (4) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a 
     NOX allowance shall not be effective until a 
     written certification of the transfer, signed by a 
     responsible official of the person making the transfer, is 
     received and recorded by the Administrator.
       (c) NOX Allowance Tracking System.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations for issuing, 
     recording, and tracking the use and transfer of 
     NOX allowances that shall specify all necessary 
     procedures and requirements for an orderly and competitive 
     functioning of the NOX allowance system.
       (d) Permit Requirements.--A NOX allowance 
     allocation or transfer shall, on recordation by the 
     Administrator, be considered to be a part of each affected 
     facility's operating permit requirements, without a 
     requirement for any further permit review or revision.
       (e) New Source Reserve.--
       (1) In general.--For a State for which the Administrator 
     distributes NOX allowances under subsection 
     (a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall place 10 percent of the 
     total annual NOX allowances of the State in a new 
     source reserve to be distributed by the Administrator--
       (A) for calendar years 2002 through 2005, to sources that 
     commence operation after 1998;
       (B) for calendar years 2006 through 2011, to sources that 
     commence operation after 2000; and
       (C) for calendar year 2012 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, to sources that commence operation after the 
     calendar year that is 5 years previous to the year for which 
     the distribution is made.
       (2) Share.--For a State for which the Administrator 
     distributes NOX allowances under subsection 
     (a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall distribute to each new 
     source a number of NOX allowances sufficient to 
     allow emissions by the source at a rate equal to the lesser 
     of the new source performance standard or the permitted level 
     for the full nameplate capacity of the source, adjusted pro 
     rata for the number of months of the year during which the 
     source operates.
       (3) Unused NOX allowances.--
       (A) In general.--During the period of calendar years 2000 
     through 2005, the Administrator shall conduct auctions at 
     which a NOX allowance remaining in the new source 
     reserve that has not been distributed under paragraph (2) 
     shall be offered for sale.
       (B) Open auctions.--An auction under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be open to any person.
       (C) Conduct of auction.--
       (i) Method of bidding.--A person wishing to bid for a 
     NOX allowance at an auction under subparagraph (A) 
     shall submit (by a date set by the Administrator) to the 
     Administrator (on a sealed bid schedule provided by the 
     Administrator) an offer to purchase a specified number of 
     NOX allowances at a specified price.
       (ii) Sale based on bid price.--A NOX allowance 
     auctioned under subparagraph (A) shall be sold on the basis 
     of bid price, starting with the highest priced bid and 
     continuing until all NOX allowances for sale at 
     the auction have been sold.
       (iii) No minimum price.--A minimum price shall not be set 
     for the purchase of a NOX allowance auctioned 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (iv) Regulations.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, shall promulgate a regulation 
     to carry out this paragraph.
       (D) Use of NOX allowances.--A NOX 
     allowance purchased at an auction under subparagraph (A) may 
     be used for any purpose and at any time after the auction 
     that is permitted for use of a NOX allowance under 
     this Act.
       (E) Proceeds of auction.--The proceeds from an auction 
     under this paragraph shall be distributed to the owner of an 
     affected source in proportion to the number of allowances 
     that the owner would have received but for this subsection.
       (f) Nature of NOX Allowances.--
       (1) Not a property right.--A NOX allowance shall 
     not be considered to be a property right.
       (2) Limitation of NOX allowances.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
     may terminate or limit a NOX allowance.
       (g) Prohibitions.--
       (1) In general.--After January 1, 2000, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       (A) for the owner or operator of an affected facility to 
     operate the affected facility in such a manner that the 
     affected facility emits nitrogen oxides in excess of the 
     amount permitted by the quantity of NOX allowances 
     held by the designated representative of the affected 
     facility; or
       (B) for any person to hold, use, or transfer a 
     NOX allowance allocated under this Act, except as 
     provided under this Act.
       (2) Other emission limitations.--Section 407 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651f) is repealed.
       (3) Time of use.--A NOX allowance may not be 
     used before the calendar year for which the NOX 
     allowance is allocated.
       (4) Permitting, monitoring, and enforcement.--Nothing in 
     this section affects--
       (A) the permitting, monitoring, and enforcement obligations 
     of the Administrator under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 
     et seq.); or
       (B) the requirements and liabilities of an affected 
     facility under that Act.
       (h) Savings Provisions.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) affects the application of, or compliance with, the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for an affected 
     facility, including the provisions related to applicable 
     national ambient air quality standards and State 
     implementation plans;
       (2) requires a change in, affects, or limits any State law 
     regulating electric utility rates or charges, including 
     prudency review under State law;
       (3) affects the application of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 791a et seq.) or the authority of the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission under that Act; or
       (4) interferes with or impairs any program for competitive 
     bidding for power supply in a State in which the Program is 
     established.

     SEC. 5. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE MONITORING.

       Section 412(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651k(a)) is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``, or of any 
     industrial facility with a capacity of 100 or more mmBtu's 
     per hour,'' after ``The owner and operator of any source 
     subject to this title''.

     SEC. 6. EXCESS EMISSIONS PENALTY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Liability.--The owner or operator of an affected 
     facility that emits nitrogen oxides in any calendar year in 
     excess of the NOX allowances the owner or operator 
     holds for use for the facility for that year shall be liable 
     for the payment of an excess emissions penalty.
       (2) Calculation.--The excess emissions penalty shall be 
     calculated by multiplying $6,000 by the quantity that is 
     equal to--
       (A) the quantity of NOX allowances that would 
     authorize the nitrogen oxides emitted by the facility for the 
     calendar year; minus
       (B) the quantity of NOX allowances that the 
     owner or operator holds for use for the facility for that 
     year.
       (3) Overlapping penalties.--A penalty under this section 
     shall not diminish the liability of the owner or operator of 
     an affected facility for any fine, penalty, or assessment 
     against the owner or operator for the same violation under 
     any other provision of law.
       (b) Excess Emissions Offset.--
       (1) In general.--The owner or operator of an affected 
     facility that emits nitrogen oxide during a calendar year in 
     excess of the NOX allowances held for the facility 
     for the calendar year shall offset in the following calendar 
     year a quantity of NOX allowances equal to the 
     number of NOX allowances that would authorize the 
     excess nitrogen oxides emitted.
       (2) Proposed plan.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the year in which excess emissions occur, the owner or 
     operator of an affected facility shall submit to the 
     Administrator and the State in which the affected facility is 
     located a proposed plan to achieve the offset required under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Condition of permit.--On approval of the proposed plan 
     by the Administrator, as submitted, or as modified or 
     conditioned by the Administrator, the plan shall be 
     considered a condition of the operating permit for the 
     affected facility without further review or revision of the 
     permit.
       (c) Penalty Adjustment.--The Administrator shall annually 
     adjust the amount of the penalty specified in subsection (a) 
     to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

     SEC. 7. SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM REVISIONS.

       Section 402 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651a) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Allowance.--The term `allowance' means an 
     authorization, allocated to an affected unit by the 
     Administrator under this title, to emit, during or after a 
     specified calendar year--
       ``(A) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar 
     years 1997 through 2004, 1 ton of sulfur dioxide; and
       ``(B) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar year 
     2005 and each calendar year thereafter, \1/2\ ton of sulfur 
     dioxide.''.

     SEC. 8. REGIONAL ECOSYSTEMS.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report identifying 
     objectives for scientifically credible environmental 
     indicators, as determined by the Administrator, that are 
     sufficient to protect sensitive ecosystems of the Adirondack 
     Mountains, mid-Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and 
     Southern Blue Ridge Mountains and water bodies of the Great 
     Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Chesapeake 
     Bay.
       (2) Acid neutralizing capacity.--The report under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) include acid neutralizing capacity as an indicator; and
       (B) identify as an objective under paragraph (1) the 
     objective of increasing the proportion of water bodies in 
     sensitive receptor areas with an acid neutralizing capacity 
     greater than zero from the proportion identified in surveys 
     begun in 1984.

[[Page 921]]

       (3) Updated report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report updating the 
     report under paragraph (1) and assessing the status and 
     trends of various environmental indicators for the regional 
     ecosystems referred to in paragraph (1).
       (4) Reports under the national acid precipitation 
     assessment program.--The reports under this subsection shall 
     be subject to the requirements applicable to a report under 
     section 103(j)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7403(j)(3)(E)).
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) Determination.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall determine whether emissions reductions 
     under section 4 are sufficient to ensure achievement of the 
     objectives stated in subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Promulgation.--If the Administrator determines under 
     paragraph (1) that emissions reductions under section 4 are 
     not sufficient to ensure achievement of the objectives 
     identified in subsection (a)(1), the Administrator shall 
     promulgate, not later than 2 years after making the finding, 
     such regulations, including modification of nitrogen oxide 
     and sulfur dioxide allowance allocations or any such measure, 
     as the Administrator determines are necessary to protect the 
     sensitive ecosystems described in subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 9. GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER PROVISIONS.

       Except as expressly provided in this Act, compliance with 
     this Act shall not exempt or exclude the owner or operator of 
     an affected facility from compliance with any other law.

     SEC. 10. MERCURY EMISSION STUDY AND CONTROL.

       (a) Study and Report.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) study the practicality of monitoring mercury emissions 
     from all combustion units that have a capacity equal to or 
     greater than 250 mmBtu's per hour; and
       (2) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (b) Regulations Concerning Monitoring.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of submission of the report under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall promulgate a 
     regulation requiring the reporting of mercury emissions from 
     units that have a capacity equal to or greater than 250 
     mmBtu's per hour.
       (c) Emission Controls.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     commencement of monitoring activities under subsection (b), 
     the Administrator shall promulgate a regulation controlling 
     electric utility and industrial source emissions of mercury.
       (2) Factors.--The regulation shall take into account 
     technological feasibility, cost, and the projected reduction 
     in levels of mercury emissions that will result from 
     implementation of this Act.

     SEC. 11. DEPOSITION RESEARCH BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
                   AGENCY.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     competitive grant program to fund research related to the 
     effects of nitrogen deposition on sensitive watersheds and 
     coastal estuaries in the Eastern United States.
       (b) Chemistry of Lakes and Streams.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the health and 
     chemistry of lakes and streams of the Adirondacks that were 
     subjects of the report transmitted under section 404 of 
     Public Law 101-549 (commonly known as the ``Clean Air Act 
     Amendments of 1990'') (104 Stat. 2632).
       (2) Following report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the report under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     shall submit a report updating the information contained in 
     the initial report.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) to carry out subsection (a), $1,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2005; and
       (2) to carry out subsection (b), $1,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2007, and 2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 173. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise 
amendments made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           amendments to the immigration and nationality act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that 
will amend several parts of our existing immigration laws, specifically 
those that fall under the umbrella of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. These changes are aimed at making our immigration laws not only 
fairer but more efficient.
  The first change will amend Section 240(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. In 1996, the laws applying to criminal aliens were 
made overly restrictive. For example, all persons guilty of aggravated 
felonies--the number of crimes that fall into this category was greatly 
expanded and made retroactive in 1996--are now ineligible for virtually 
any form of leniency. This means that many people, who have led 
exemplary lives for many years, now find themselves deportable for 
offenses committed decades ago. They are also subject to mandatory 
detention and have no chance for an immigration judge to evaluate their 
individual circumstances. This is unfair.
  My second change amends Section 240A.(1)(a) of the same act. At 
present, the Attorney General has the authority to stop the deportation 
of a lawful resident who has been in this country for seven years. The 
1996 changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act now bar this relief 
for anyone convicted of an aggravated felony. This provision has led to 
many injustices because of the sheer number of offenses that are now 
aggravated felonies. I propose that we deny relief only to those who 
have been convicted of aggravated felonies that carry a penalty of five 
years or more in prison.
  In conjunction with this, I propose that we amend Section 240A(d)(1). 
This provision says that the time for determining the above seven years 
residency period stops when an aggravated crime is or was committed. 
This has barred relief for people with ancient convictions but many 
good years of citizenship since then. This should be changed so that 
the countable residence period stops only when formal immigration 
charges are filed because of the crime and not when the crime is or was 
committed.
  Another of my amendments made the transitional rules permanent 
governing Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This 
section now requires that all criminal aliens be detained from the time 
of their release on criminal charges until their deportation hearing. 
This requirement was so harsh and expensive that Congress provided a 
two-year transition period, ending on October 1998, that allowed 
immigration judges to use their discretion in evaluating whether or not 
an individual was a risk of flight or a danger to the community. This 
discretion should be continued because it is fair and because it will 
empty our jails of those who will return for their hearings and who 
pose no threat to our communities.
  I also propose that we restore judicial review in deportation cases. 
The 1996 reforms ostensibly banned criminal aliens from seeking a 
judicial review of their cases. The courts have reached many different 
outcomes over this ban and the situation, frankly, is a mess. I believe 
that criminal aliens should have the right to have their convictions 
reviewed by a United States circuit court of appeals.
  Similiarly, I believe that aliens should have the right to legal 
counsel when they are faced with removal. The law now provides that an 
alien is entitled to counsel if he can afford to retain one. In 
reality, this has created great expense and delay for the Federal 
government because cases are often continued for lengthy periods while 
aliens try to find pro bono counsel or counsel they can afford. My bill 
creates a pilot program in selected Immigration and Nationalization 
districts where free, expert counsel would be provided to aliens. A 
study of the impact on overall Department of Justice costs would be 
required to decide if this program should be extended nationwide.
  My last amendments are concerned with who should be admitted to this 
country. The most objectionable element of our current admission system 
is the delay--estimated to be five years--for a vitally important 
family reunion category, part A of the second family-based preference 
(FS-2A). This category, for admission of spouses and minor children of 
lawful, permanent residents, is now limited to 114,000 per year. 
Nuclear families should live together. To obtain more spaces for the 
FS-2A preference, the diversity lottery visas should be eliminated, 
freeing 55,000 spaces annually.
  Lastly, I believe that the EB-5 preference for investors should be 
repealed.

[[Page 922]]

The rich should not be able to buy their way into this country. This 
category was added in 1990 to encourage investment. Instead, this 
provision has led to the creation of some highly questionable 
investment schemes that have cost the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service untold hours and resources in attempting to reign them in. 
Moreover, the evidence of new jobs being created is very thin and not 
worth the administrative costs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the  
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 173

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       (a) Cancellation of Removal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 240A(a)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony 
     punishable by imprisonment for a period of not less than five 
     years.''.
       (2) Termination of continuous period.--Section 240A(d)(1) 
     of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``or when'' and all that follows through ``earliest''.
       (b) Custody Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Section 236(c)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Release.--The Attorney General may release an alien 
     described in paragraph (1) only if the alien is an alien 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) or (iii) and--
       ``(A) the alien was lawfully admitted to the United States 
     and satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not 
     pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property 
     and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding; or
       ``(B) the alien was not lawfully admitted to the United 
     States, cannot be removed because the designated country of 
     removal will not accept the alien, and satisfies the Attorney 
     General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety 
     of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for 
     any scheduled proceeding.''.
       (2) Repeal.--Section 303(b) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is repealed.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Section 242(a)(2)(C) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``no court shall have jurisdiction to 
     review any'' and inserting ``a court of appeals for the 
     judicial circuit in which a final order of removal was issued 
     shall have jurisdiction to review the''.
       (d) Right to Counsel.--Section 292 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), in''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In any removal proceedings before an immigration 
     judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney 
     General from any such removal proceedings (in three 
     designated districts), the person concerned shall have the 
     privilege of being represented by court-appointed counsel who 
     shall be paid by the United States and who are authorized to 
     practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.''.
       (e) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act are repealed:
       (1) Section 203(b)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)).
       (2) Section 203(c) (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).
       (3) Section 201(a)(3) and 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(a)(3), 
     1151(e)).
       (4) Section 204(a)(1)(F) and (G) (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F) 
     and (G)).
       (5) Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 174. A bill to provide funding for States to correct Y2K problems 
in computers that are used to administer State and local government 
programs; to the Committee on Finance.


  y2k state and local gap (government assistance programs) act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Y2K 
State and Local Government Assistance Programs (GAP) Act of 1999.'' I 
am pleased to have Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) and Christopher J. 
Dodd (D-CT), the Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the 
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, as original 
cosponsors of this legislation. This bill provides a matching grant for 
states to work on the millennium computer problem. While the Federal 
government and large corporations are expected to have their computers 
intact on January 1, 2000, state governments lag behind in fixing the 
problem. Failure of state computers could have a devastating effect on 
those individuals who rely on essential state-administered poverty 
programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and child welfare and support. 
These individuals cannot go a day, a week, or a month without these 
programs working properly. I am hopeful that the bill Senators Bennett, 
Dodd, and I are introducing today will help states fix their computers, 
particularly those computers used to administer Federal welfare 
programs.
  It has been almost three years since I asked the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) to study and produce a report on the 
implications of the Y2K problem. CRS issued the report to me with the 
following comments: ``The Year 2000 problem is indeed serious, and 
fixing it will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the 
careful and coordinated attention of the Federal government, as well as 
the private sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1, 
2000.'' I wrote the President on July 31, 1996 to relay the findings of 
CRS and make him aware of this grave problem. In the letter, I warned 
the president of the ``extreme negative economic consequences of the 
Y2K Time Bomb,'' and suggested that ``a presidential aide be appointed 
to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies, 
including the military, be Y2K compliant by January 1, 1999 [leaving a 
year for `testing'] and that all commercial and industrial firms doing 
business with the Federal government must also be compliant by that 
date.''
  Since that time, the government has taken some of the necessary steps 
to combat the millennium bug. The President created the Year 2000 
Conversion Council and appointed John Koskinen to head it. The Senate, 
under the leadership of Chairman Bennett and Vice Chairman Dodd, 
established the Special Committee on the Y2K problem. And 
Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) continues to due an excellent job in 
keeping the government focused on the issue. Thanks in part to the work 
of these individuals, we have made tremendous progress on the 
millennium bug. Y2K experts have become optimistic enough to dismiss 
doomsday predictions of widespread power outages, telephone failures, 
and grounded jetliners in the U.S. Businesses and Federal agencies that 
were lagging in their repair work last year have redoubled their 
efforts in recent months; telephone and electric networks, which are 
crucial to the operation of almost all large computer systems, are in 
better-than-expected shape; and technicians have found remarkably few 
date-related problems with the electronic circuitry in a host of other 
``day-to-day'' devices, from subway cars to elevators.
  Mr. Koskinen predicts that the bug's impact will be similar to a 
powerful winter storm--minor inconveniences for many people and severe, 
but short-term, disruptions for some communities. I agree with Mr. 
Koskinen and other Y2K experts. I do not expect the four horsemen, 
armed with flood and catastrophe, to be riding in on January 1, 2000. 
But experts agree that state governments are not making sufficient 
progress in fixing the problem. It is for this reason that Senators 
Bennett, Dodd, and I are introducing this bill today.
  The ``Y2K State and Local GAP Act of 1999'' provides funding for 
states to address the Y2K problem. The bill stipulates that certain 
Federal poverty programs--Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), food stamps, child 
support enforcement, child care, and child welfare programs--be listed 
as priority programs. The people dependent on these programs will be 
the most adversely affected by the problem if state computers crash. To 
be eligible for Federal support money, states must submit a plan 
describing their Y2K development and implementation program. A state 
that is awarded a grant under this legislation is required to expend $1 
for every $2 provided by the Federal government. The matching 
requirement will give states and local governments incentive to work on 
their computers. And the numbers indicate that states

[[Page 923]]

need a great amount of incentive and help on this issue.
  According to a National Association of State Information Resource 
Executives survey, some states have not yet completed work on any of 
their critical systems, and those systems responsible for administering 
poverty programs are a real concern. A November 1998 General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report found that most of the systems used to administer 
poverty programs are not ready for the new millennium--84 percent of 
Medicaid systems, 76 percent of food stamps, and 75 percent of TANF 
systems were not compliant. Since these programs are administered at 
the state and local level, it is these computers which ensure that 
benefit payments are on time and accurate. Given the lack of means of 
those assisted by the programs, the possible disruption of benefit 
payments should be a cause for concern--a billion dollars in benefits 
payments might not be delivered because of the millennial malady.
  Historically the fin de siecle has caused quite a stir. Prophets, 
prelates, monks, mathematicians, and soothsayers warn Anno Domini 2000 
will draw the world to its catastrophic conclusion. I am confident that 
the Y2K problem will not play a part in this. But we must continue to 
work on this problem with purpose and dedication. Disraeli wrote: ``Man 
is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures 
of men.'' We created the Y2K problem and we must fix it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Y2K State and Local 
Government Assistance Programs Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 174

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Y2K State and Local GAP 
     (Government Assistance Programs) Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Welfare programs.--The welfare programs are as follows:
       (A) TANF.--The State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       (B) Medicaid.--The program of medical assistance under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 
     seq.).
       (C) Food stamps.--The food stamp program, as defined in 
     section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)).
       (D) WIC.--The program of assistance under the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and 
     children (WIC) under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
       (E) Child support enforcement.--The child support and 
     paternity establishment program established under part D of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
       (F) Child welfare.--A child welfare program or a program 
     designed to promote safe and stable families established 
     under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.).
       (G) Child care.--The Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) (including funding 
     provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 618)).
       (2) Y2K.--The term ``Y2K compliant'' means, with respect to 
     information technology, that the information technology 
     accurately processes (including calculating, comparing, and 
     sequencing) date and time data from, into, and between the 
     20th and 21st centuries and the years 1999 and 2000, and leap 
     year calculations, to the extent that other information 
     technology properly exchanges date and time data with it.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO STATES TO MAKE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
                   PROGRAMS Y2K COMPLIANT.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall award grants in accordance with this section 
     to States for purposes of making grants to assist the States 
     and local governments in making programs administered by the 
     States and local governments Y2K compliant. The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall give priority to grant requests that relate to 
     making Federal welfare programs Y2K compliant.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Number of grants.--No more than 75 grants may be 
     awarded under this section.
       (B) Per state limitation.--Not more than 2 grants 
     authorized under this section may be awarded per State.
       (C) Application deadline.--45 days after enactment.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--A State, through the State Governor's 
     Office, may submit an application for a grant authorized 
     under this section at such time within the constraints of 
     paragraph Sec. 3(a)(2)(C) and in such manner as the Secretary 
     of Commerce may determine.
       (2) Information required.--An application for a grant 
     authorized under this section shall contain the following:
       (A) A description of a proposed plan for the development 
     and implementation of a Y2K compliance program for the 
     State's programs or for a local government program, including 
     a proposed budget for the plan and a request for a specific 
     funding amount.
       (B) A description or identification of a proposed funding 
     source for completion of the plan (if applicable) and 
     maintenance of the system after the conclusion of the period 
     for which the grant is to be awarded.
       (c) Conditions for Approval of Applications.--
       (1) Matching requirement.--
       (A) In general.--A State awarded a grant under this section 
     shall expend $1 for every $2 awarded under the grant to carry 
     out the development and implementation of a Y2K compliance 
     program for the State's programs under the proposed plan.
       (B) Waiver for hardship.--The Secretary of Commerce may 
     waive or modify the matching requirement described in 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of any State that the Secretary 
     of Commerce determines would suffer undue hardship as a 
     result of being subject to the requirement.
       (C) Non-federal expenditures.--
       (i) Cash or in kind.--State expenditures required under 
     subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including equipment, or services.
       (ii) No credit for pre-award expenditures.--Only State 
     expenditures made after a grant has been awarded under this 
     section may be counted for purposes of determining whether 
     the State has satisfied the matching expenditure requirement 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Considerations.--In evaluating an application for a 
     grant under this section the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     consider the extent to which the proposed system is feasible 
     and likely to achieve the purposes described in subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (d) Length of Awards.--No grant may be awarded under this 
     section for a period of more than 2 years.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--Funds provided to a State under 
     a grant awarded under this section shall remain available 
     until expended without fiscal year limitation.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Annual report from grantees.--Each State that is 
     awarded a grant under this section shall submit an annual 
     report to the Secretary of Commerce that contains a 
     description of the ongoing results of the independent 
     evaluation of the plan for, and implementation of, the 
     compliance program funded under the grant.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     termination of all grants awarded under this section, the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a final report 
     evaluating the programs funded under such grants.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 1999 to 2001 funded from the Y2K Emergency 
     Supplemental Funds appropriated in the FY99 Omnibus Act, 
     Public Law 105-277.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 175. A bill to repeal the habeas corpus requirement that a Federal 
court defer to State court judgments and uphold a conviction regardless 
of whether the Federal court believes that the State court erroneously 
interpreted constitutional law, except in cases where the Federal court 
believes that the State court acted in an unreasonable manner; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       habeas corpus legislation

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce this bill to repeal an 
unprecedented provision--unprecedented until the 104th Congress--to 
tamper with the constitutional protection of habeas corpus.
  The provision reads:

       (d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 
     person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court 
     shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was 
     adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless 
     the adjudication of the claim--
       (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 
     involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 
     Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
     States; or
       (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 
     unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
     evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

  In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional 
protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, 
an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we

[[Page 924]]

introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of 
laws.
  Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, ``The 
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless 
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require 
it.''
  We are mightily and properly concerned about the public safety, which 
is why we enacted the counter-terrorism bill. But we have not been 
invaded, Mr. President, and the only rebellion at hand appears to be 
against the Constitution itself. We are dealing here, sir, with a 
fundamental provision of law, one of those essential civil liberties 
which precede and are the basis of political liberties.
  The writ of habeas corpus is often referred to as the ``Great Writ of 
Liberty.'' William Blackstone (1723-80) called it ``the most celebrated 
writ in English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner 
of illegal imprisonment.''
  I repeat what I have said previously here on the Senate floor: If I 
had to choose between living in a country with habeas corpus but 
without free elections, or a country with free elections but without 
habeas corpus, I would choose habeas corpus every time. To say again, 
this is one of the fundamental civil liberties on which every 
democratic society of the world has built political liberties that have 
come subsequently.
  I make the point that the abuse of habeas corpus--appeals of capital 
sentences--is hugely overstated. A 1995 study by the Department of 
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that habeas corpus 
appeals by death row inmates constitute 1 percent of all Federal habeas 
filings. Total habeas filings make up 4 percent of the caseload of 
Federal district courts. And most Federal habeas petitions are disposed 
of in less than 1 year. The serious delays occur in State courts, which 
take an average of 5 years to dispose of habeas petitions. If there is 
delay, the delay is with the State courts.
  It is troubling that Congress has undertaken to tamper with the Great 
Writ in a bill designed to respond to the tragic circumstances of the 
Oklahoma City bombing 1995. Habeas corpus has little to do with 
terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and has been 
tried in Federal courts.
  Nothing in our present circumstance requires the suspension of habeas 
corpus, which was the practical effect of the provision in that bill. 
To require a Federal court to defer to a State court's judgment unless 
the State court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' effectively 
precludes Federal review. I find this disorienting.
  Anthony Lewis has written of the habeas provision in that bill: ``It 
is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a 
constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' We have agreed to this; 
to what will we be agreeing next? I restate Mr. Lewis' observation, a 
person of great experience, long a student of the courts, ``It is a new 
and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional 
decision is not to be noticed.'' Backward reels the mind.
  On December 8, 1995, four former U.S. Attorneys General, two 
Republicans and two Democrats, all persons with whom I have the honor 
to be acquainted, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Nicholas 
Katzenbach, and Elliot Richardson--I served in administrations with Mr. 
Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson; I have the deepest regard for 
them--wrote President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 December 8, 1995.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The habeas corpus provisions in the 
     Senate terrorism bill, which the House will soon take up, are 
     unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite 
     the death penalty review process, the litigation and 
     constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the 
     imposition of the death penalty. We strongly urge you to 
     communicate to the Congress your resolve and your duty under 
     the constitution, to prevent the enactment of such 
     unconstitutional legislation and the consequent disruption of 
     so critical of part of our criminal punishment system.
       The constitutional infirmities reside in three provisions 
     of the legislation: one requiring federal courts to defer to 
     erroneous state court rulings on federal constitutional 
     matters, one imposing time limits which could operate to 
     completely bar any federal habeas corpus review at all, and 
     one to prevent the federal courts from hearing the evidence 
     necessary to decide a federal constitutional question. They 
     violate the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial 
     powers of Article III, and due process. None of these 
     provisions appeared in the bill that you and Senator Biden 
     worked out in the last Congress together with representatives 
     of prosecutors' organizations.
       The deference requirement would bar any federal court from 
     granting habeas corpus relief where a state court has 
     misapplied the United States Constitution, unless the 
     constitutional error rose to a level of ``unreasonableness.'' 
     The time-limits provisions set a single period of the filing 
     of both state and federal post-conviction petitions (six 
     months in a capital case and one year in other cases), 
     commencing with the date a state conviction becomes final on 
     direct review. Under these provisions, the entire period 
     could be consumed in the state process, through no fault of 
     the prisoner or counsel, thus creating an absolute bar to the 
     filing of federal habeas corpus petition. Indeed, the period 
     could be consumed before counsel had even been appointed in 
     the state process, so that the inmate would have no notice of 
     the time limit or the fatal consequences of consuming all of 
     it before filing a state petition.
       Both of these provisions, by flatly barring federal habeas 
     corpus review under certain circumstances, violate the 
     Constitution's Suspension Clause, which provides: ``The 
     privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be 
     suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion 
     the public safety may require it'' (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1). 
     Any doubt as to whether this guarantee applies to persons 
     held in state as well as federal custody was removed by the 
     passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the amendment's 
     framers' frequent mention of habeas corpus as one of the 
     privileges and immunities so protected.
       The preclusion of access to habeas corpus also violates Due 
     Process. A measure is subject to proscription under the due 
     process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so 
     rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to 
     be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical 
     practice.'' Medina v. California, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2577 
     (1992). Independent federal court review of the 
     constitutionality of state criminal judgments has existed 
     since the founding of the Nation, first by writ of error, and 
     since 1867 by writ of habeas corpus. Nothing else is more 
     deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience. 
     There is no case in which ``a state court's incorrect legal 
     determination has ever been allowed to stand because it was 
     reasonable,'' Justice O'Connor found in Wright v. West, 112 
     S. Ct. 2482, 2497; ``We have always held that federal courts, 
     even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what 
     the law is.'' Indeed, Alexander Hamilton argued, in The 
     Federalist No. 84, that the existence of just two 
     protections--habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex 
     post facto laws--obviated the need to add a Bill of Rights to 
     the Constitution.
       The deference requirement may also violate the powers 
     granted to the judiciary under Article III. By stripping the 
     federal courts of authority to exercise independent judgment 
     and forcing them to defer to previous judgments made by state 
     courts, the provision runs afoul of the oldest constitutional 
     mission of the federal courts: ``the duty . . . to say what 
     the law is.'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 
     (1803). Although Congress is free to alter the federal 
     courts' jurisdiction, it cannot order them how to interpret 
     the Constitution, or dictate any outcome in the merits. 
     United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). In 
     1996, the Supreme Court reiterated that Congress has no power 
     to assign ``rubber stamp work'' to an Article III court, 
     ``Congress may be free to establish a . . . scheme that 
     operates without court participation,'' the Court said, ``but 
     that is a matter quite different from instructing a court 
     automatically to enter a judgment pursuant to a decision the 
     court has not authority to evaluate.'' Gutierrez de Martinez 
     v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct 2227, 2234.
       Finally, in prohibiting evidentiary hearings where the 
     constitutional issue raised does not go to guilt or 
     innocence, the legislation again violates Due Process. A 
     violation of constitutional rights cannot be judged in a 
     vacuum. The determination of the facts assumes ``and 
     importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive 
     rule of law to be applied.'' Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 
     474 (1974).
       Prior to 1996, the last time habeas corpus legislation was 
     debated at length in constitutional terms was in 1968. A bill 
     substantially eliminating federal habeas corpus review for 
     state prisoners was defeated because, as Republican Senator 
     Hugh Scott put it at the end of debate, ``if Congress tampers

[[Page 925]]

     with the great writ, its action would have about as much 
     chance of being held constitutional as the celebrated 
     celluloid dog chasing the asbestos cat through hell.''
       In more recent years, the habeas reform debate has been 
     viewed as a mere adjunct of the debate over the death 
     penalty. But when the Senate took up the terrorism bill this 
     year, Senator Moynihan sought to reconnect with the large 
     framework of constitutional liberties: ``If I had to live in 
     a country which had habeas corpus but not free elections,'' 
     he said, ``I would take habeas corpus every time,'' Senator 
     Chafee noted that his uncle, a Harvard law scholar, has 
     called habeas corpus ``the most important human rights 
     provision in the Constitution,'' With the debate back on 
     constitutional grounds, Senator Biden's amendment to delete 
     the deference requirement nearly passed, with 46 votes.
       We respectfully ask that you insist, first and foremost, on 
     the preservation of independent federal review, i.e., on the 
     rejection of any requirement that federal courts defer to 
     state court judgments on federal constitutional questions. We 
     also urge that separate time limits be set for filing federal 
     and state habeas corpus petitions--a modest change which need 
     not interfere with the setting of strict time limits--and 
     that they begin to run only upon the appointment of competent 
     counsel. And we urge that evidentiary hearings be permitted 
     wherever the factual record is deficient on an important 
     constitutional issue. Congress can either fix the 
     constitutional flaws now, or wait through several years of 
     litigation and confusion before being sent back to the 
     drawing board. Ultimately, it is the public's interest in the 
     prompt and fair disposition of criminal cases which will 
     suffer. The passage of an unconstitutional bill helps no one.
       We respectfully urge you, as both President and a former 
     professor of constitutional law, to call upon Congress to 
     remedy these flaws before sending the terrorism bill to your 
     desk. We request an opportunity to meet with you personally 
     to discuss this matter so vital to the future of the Republic 
     and the liberties we all hold dear.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr.,
       Baltimore, MD.
     Edward H. Levi,
       Chicago, IL.
     Nicholas deB. Katzenback,
       Princeton, NJ.
     Elliot L. Richardson,
       Washington, DC.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Let me read excerpts from the letter:

       The habeas corpus provisions in the Senate bill * * * are 
     unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite 
     the death penalty review process, the litigation and 
     constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the 
     imposition of the death penalty * * *
       The constitutional infirmities * * * violate the Habeas 
     Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial powers of Article III, 
     and due process * * *.
       * * * A measure is subject to proscription under the due 
     process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so 
     rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to 
     be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical 
     practice.''

  That language is Medina versus California, a 1992 decision. To 
continue,

       Independent federal court review of the constitutionality 
     of state criminal judgments has existed since the founding of 
     the Nation, first by writ of error, and since 1867 by writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       Nothing else is more deeply rooted in America's legal 
     traditions and conscience. There is no clause in which ``a 
     state court's incorrect legal determination has ever been 
     allowed to stand because it was reasonable.''

  That is Justice O'Connor, in Wright versus West. She goes on, as the 
attorneys general quote. ``We have always held that federal courts, 
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law 
is.''
  If I may interpolate, she is repeating the famous injunction of 
Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison. The attorneys general go on 
to say,

       Indeed Alexander Hamilton argued, in The Federalist No. 84, 
     that the existence of just two protections--habeas corpus and 
     the prohibition against ex post facto laws--obviated the need 
     to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

  The letter from the Attorneys General continues, but that is the gist 
of it. I might point out that there was, originally, an objection to 
ratification of the Constitution, with those objecting arguing that 
there had to be a Bill of Rights added. Madison wisely added one during 
the first session of the first Congress. But he and Hamilton and Jay, 
as authors of The ``Federalist Papers,'' argued that with habeas corpus 
and the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution, 
there would be no need even for a Bill of Rights. We are glad that, in 
the end, we do have one. But their case was surely strong, and it was 
so felt by the framers.
  To cite Justice O'Connor again: ``A state court's incorrect legal 
determination has never been allowed to stand because it was 
reasonable.''
  Justice O'Connor went on: ``We have always held that Federal courts, 
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law 
is.''
  Mr. President, we can fix this now. Or, as the Attorneys General 
state, we can ``wait through several years of litigation and confusion 
before being sent back to the drawing board.'' I fear that we will not 
fix it now.
  We Americans think of ourselves as a new nation. We are not. Of the 
countries that existed in 1914, there are only eight which have not had 
their form of government changed by violence since then. Only the 
United Kingdom goes back to 1787 when the delegates who drafted our 
Constitution established this Nation, which continues to exist. In 
those other nations, sir, a compelling struggle took place, from the 
middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century, and 
beyond into the 20th, and even to the end of the 20th in some 
countries, to establish those basic civil liberties which are the 
foundation of political liberties and, or those, none is so precious as 
habeas corpus, the ``Great Writ.''
  Here we are trivializing this treasure, putting in jeopardy a 
tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that 
goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why 
are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with 
provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus? 
The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have 
enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than 
they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or 
not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at 
the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread.
  This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous. 
If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys 
General, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson--
and I repeat that I have served in administrations with three of them--
this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law.
  Seventeen years ago, June 6, 1982, to be precise, I gave the 
commencement address at St. John University Law School in Brooklyn. I 
spoke of the proliferation of court-curbing bills at that time. I 
remarked:

       * * * some people--indeed, a great many people--have 
     decided that they do not agree with the Supreme Court and 
     that they are not satisfied to Debate, Legislate, Litigate.
       They have embarked upon an altogether new and I believe 
     quite dangerous course of action. A new triumvirate hierarchy 
     has emerged. Convene (meaning the calling of a constitutional 
     convention), Overrule (the passage of legislation designed to 
     overrule a particular Court ruling, when the Court's ruling 
     was based on an interpretation of the Constitution), and 
     Restrict (to restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts to 
     decide particular kinds of cases).
       Perhaps the most pernicious of these is the attempt to 
     restrict courts' jurisdictions, for it is * * * profoundly at 
     odds with our Nation's customs and political philosophy.
       It is a commonplace that our democracy is characterized by 
     majority rule and minority rights. Our Constitution vests 
     majority rule in the Congress and the President while the 
     courts protect the rights of the minority.
       While the legislature makes the laws, and the executive 
     enforces them, it is the courts that tell us what the laws 
     say and whether they conform to the Constitution.
       This notion of judicial review has been part of our 
     heritage for nearly two hundred years. There is not a more 
     famous case in American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison 
     and few more famous dicta than Chief Justice Marshall's that 
     ``It is emphatically the province and the duty of the 
     judicial department to say what the law is.''
       But in order for the court to interpret the law, it must 
     decide cases. If it cannot hear certain cases, then it cannot 
     protect certain rights.

  We need to deal resolutely with terrorism. And we have. But under the 
guise of combating terrorism, we have diminished the fundamental civil 
liberties that Americans have enjoyed for two centuries; therefore the 
terrorists will have won.

[[Page 926]]

  My bill will repeal this dreadful, unconstitutional provision now in 
public law. I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``First 
in Damage to Constitutional Liberties,'' by Nat Hentoff from the 
Washington Post of November 16, 1996; and the article entitled 
``Clinton's Sorriest Record'' from the New York Times of October 14, 
1996; be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Washington Post, November 16, 1996]

              First in Damage to Constitutional Liberties

                            (By Nat Hentoff)

       There have been American presidents to whom the 
     Constitution has been a nuisance to be overruled by any means 
     necessary. In 1798, only seven years after the Bill of Rights 
     was ratified, John Adams triumphantly led Congress in the 
     passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which imprisoned a 
     number of journalists and others for bringing the president 
     or Congress into ``contempt or disrepute.'' So much for the 
     First Amendment.
       During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln actually suspended 
     the writ of habeas corpus. Alleged constitutional guarantees 
     of peaceful dissent were swept away during the First World 
     War--with the approval of Woodrow Wilson. For example, there 
     were more than 1,900 prosecutions for anti-war books, 
     newspaper articles, pamphlets and speeches. And Richard Nixon 
     seemed to regard the Bill of Rights as primarily a devilish 
     source of aid to his enemy.
       No American president, however, has done so much damage to 
     constitutional liberties as Bill Clinton--often with the 
     consent of Republicans in Congress. But it has been Clinton 
     who had the power and the will to seriously weaken our 
     binding document in ways that were almost entirely ignored by 
     the electorate and the press during the campaign.
       Unlike Lincoln, for example, Clinton did a lot more than 
     temporarily suspend habeas corpus. One of his bills that has 
     been enacted into law guts the rights that Thomas Jefferson 
     insisted be included in the Constitution. A state prisoner on 
     death row now has only a year to petition a federal court to 
     review the constitutionality of his trial or sentence. In 
     many previous cases of prisoners eventually freed after years 
     of waiting to be executed, proof of their innocence has been 
     discovered long after the present one year limit.
       Moreover, the Clinton administration is--as the ACLU's 
     Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal--``the 
     most wire-tap-friendly administration in history.''
       And Clinton ordered the Justice Department to appeal a 
     unanimous 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring 
     unconstitutional the Communications Decency Act censoring the 
     Internet, which he signed into law.
       There is a chilling insouciance in Clinton's elbowing the 
     Constitution out of the way. He blithely, for instance, has 
     stripped the courts of their power to hear certain kinds of 
     cases. As Anthony Lewis points out in the New York Times, 
     Clinton has denied many people their day in court.
       For one example, says Lewis. ``The new immigration law * * 
     * takes away the rights of thousands of aliens who may be 
     entitled to legalize their situation under a 1986 statute 
     giving amnesty to illegal aliens.'' Cases involving as many 
     as 300,000 people who may still qualify for amnesty have been 
     waiting to be decided. All have now been thrown out of court 
     by the new immigration law.
       There have been other Clinton revisions of the 
     Constitution, but in sum--as David Boaz of the Cato Institute 
     has accurately put it--Clinton has shown ``a breathtaking 
     view of the power of the Federal government, a view directly 
     opposite the meaning of `civil libertarian.' ''
       During the campaign there was no mention at all of this 
     breathtaking exercise of federal power over constitutional 
     liberties. None by former senator Bob Dole who has largely 
     been in agreement with this big government approach to 
     constitutional ``guarantees.'' Nor did the press ask the 
     candidates about the Constitution.
       Laura Murphy concludes that ``both Clinton and Dole are 
     indicative of how far the American people have slipped away 
     from the notions embodied in the Bill of Rights.'' She 
     omitted the role of the press, which seems focused primarily 
     on that part of the First Amendment that protects the press.
       Particularly revealing were the endorsements of Clinton by 
     the New York Times, The Washington Post and the New Republic, 
     among others. In none of them was the president's civil 
     liberties record probed. (The Post did mention the FBI files 
     at the White House.) Other ethical problems were cited, but 
     nothing was mentioned about habeas corpus, court-stripping, 
     lowering the content of the Internet to material suitable for 
     children and the Clinton administration's decided lack of 
     concern for privacy protections of the individual against 
     increasingly advanced government technology.
       A revealing footnote to the electorate's ignorance of this 
     subverting of the Constitution is a statement by N. Don 
     Wycliff, editorial page editor of the Chicago Tribune. He 
     tells Newsweek that ``people are not engaged in the 
     [political] process because there are no compelling issues 
     driving them to participate. It would be different if we 
     didn't have peace and prosperity.''
       What more could we possibly want?
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 14, 1996]

               Abroad at Home; Clinton's Sorriest Record

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Bill Clinton has not been called to account in this 
     campaign for the worst aspect of his Presidency. That is his 
     appalling record on constitutional rights.
       The Clinton years have seen, among other things, a series 
     of measures stripping the courts of their power to protect 
     individuals from official abuse--the power that has been the 
     key to American freedom. There has been nothing like it since 
     the Radical Republicans, after the Civil War, acted to keep 
     the courts from holding the occupation of the South to 
     constitutional standards.
       The Republican Congress of the last two years initiated 
     some of the attacks on the courts. But President Clinton did 
     not resist them as other Presidents have. And he proposed 
     some of the measures trampling on constitutional protections.
       Much of the worst has happened this year. President Clinton 
     sponsored a counterterrorism bill that became law with a 
     number of repressive features in it. One had nothing to do 
     with terrorism: a provision gutting the power of Federal 
     courts to examine state criminal convictions, on writs of 
     habeas corpus, to make sure there was no violation of 
     constitutional rights.
       The Senate might well have moderated the habeas corpus 
     provision if the President had put up a fight. But he broke a 
     promise and gave way.
       The counterterrorism law also allows the Government to 
     deport a legally admitted alien, on the ground that he is 
     suspected of a connection to terrorism, without letting him 
     see or challenge the evidence. And it goes back to the 
     McCarthy period by letting the Government designate 
     organizations as ``terrorist''--a designation that could have 
     included Nelson Mandela's African National Congress before 
     apartheid gave way to democracy in South Africa.
       The immigration bill just passed by Congress has many 
     sections prohibiting review by the courts of decisions by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Attorney 
     General. Some of those provisions have drastic retroactive 
     consequences.
       For example, Congress in 1986 passed an amnesty bill that 
     allowed many undocumented aliens to legalize their presence 
     in this country. They had to file by a certain date, but a 
     large number said they failed to do so because improper 
     I.N.S. regulations discouraged them.
       The Supreme Court held that those who could show they were 
     entitled to amnesty but were put off by the I.N.S. rules 
     could file late. Lawsuits involving thousands of people are 
     pending. But the new immigration law throws all those cases--
     and individuals--out of court.
       Another case, in the courts for years, stems from an 
     attempt to deport a group of Palestinians. Their lawyer sued 
     to block the deportation action; a Federal district judge, 
     Stephen V. Wilson, a Reagan appointee, found that it was an 
     unlawful selective proceeding against people for exercising 
     their constitutional right of free speech. The new 
     immigration law says the courts may not hear such cases.
       The immigration law protects the I.N.S. from judicial 
     scrutiny in a broader way. Over the years the courts have 
     barred the service from deliberately discriminatory policies, 
     for example the practice of disallowing virtually all asylum 
     claims by people fleeing persecution in certain countries. 
     The law bars all lawsuits of that kind.
       Those are just a few examples of recent incursions on due 
     process of law and other constitutional guarantees. A 
     compelling piece by John Heilemann in this month's issue of 
     Wired, the magazine on the social consequences of the 
     computer revolution, concludes that Mr. Clinton's record on 
     individual rights is ``breathtaking in its awfulness.'' He 
     may be, Mr. Heilemann says, ``the worst civil liberties 
     President since Richard Nixon.'' And even President Nixon did 
     not leave a legacy of court-stripping statutes.
       It is by no means clear that Bob Dole would do better. He 
     supported some of the worst legislation in the Senate, as the 
     Gingrich Republicans did in the House
       Why? The Soviet threat, which used to be the excuse for 
     shoving the Constitution aside, is gone. Even in the worst 
     days of the Red Scare we did not strip the courts of their 
     protective power. Why are we legislating in panic now? Why, 
     especially, is a lawyer President indifferent to 
     constitutional rights and their protection by the courts?

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 927]]



                                 S. 175

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A FEDERAL COURT 
                   DEFER TO A STATE COURT UNLESS THE STATE COURT 
                   ACTED IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER IN HABEAS 
                   CORPUS CASES.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsection (d) of section 2254 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2264(b) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``, (d),''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 176. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the history of 
the Harlem Reniassance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                  harlem renaissance cultural zone act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
establish a cultural zone commemorating the Harlem Renaissance, one of 
this country's greatest cultural, literary, and musical movements. 
Pioneered by W.E.B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and James Weldon Johnson, the 
Harlem Renaissance was at the forefront of this country's intellectual, 
literary, and artistic development in the 1920s. Langston Hughes, Zora 
Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean Toomer, and Wallace 
Thurman were among this movement's most gifted writers. The Harlem 
Renaissance also included the music of Duke Ellington, the theatrical 
productions of Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle, and the rich nightlife of 
the Cotton Club, the Savoy, and Connie's Inn.
  This bill empowers the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
National Park Service, to conduct a study to determine how best to 
memorialize this great movement and to preserve and maintain its rich 
history. Working and cooperating with the appropriate state and local 
authorities, I am confident that we can properly recognize and preserve 
one of this country's foremost cultural, literary, and historical 
periods.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 176

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Harlem Renaissance Cultural 
     Zone Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Harlem Renaissance was the dominant intellectual, 
     literary, and artistic expression of the New Negro Movement 
     of the 1920's;
       (2) W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson, and Alain Locke 
     planted the seeds of the New Negro Movement, while Langston 
     Hughes, Zora Neal Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean 
     Toomer, and Wallace Thurman were among the Movement's most 
     gifted writers; and
       (3) the Harlem Renaissance also included the music of Duke 
     Ellington, the theatrical productions of Eubie Blake, and the 
     nightlife of the Cotton Club and the Alhamba theaters.

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CULTURAL ZONE TO 
                   COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY OF THE HARLEM 
                   RENAISSANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the National Park Service, shall 
     conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and 
     interpreting the history of the Harlem Renaissance.
       (b) Matters To Be Considered.--The study under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) consideration of the establishment of a new unit of the 
     National Park System;
       (2) consideration of the establishment of various 
     appropriate designations for sites relating to the history of 
     the Harlem Renaissance; and
       (3) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State 
     and local governments, historical organizations, and other 
     entities.
       (c) Study Process.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct the study with public involvement and in 
     consultation with State and local officials, scholarly and 
     other interested organizations, and individuals;
       (2) complete the study as expeditiously as practicable 
     after the date on which funds are made available; and
       (3) on completion of the study, submit to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     findings and recommendations of the study.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 177. A bill for the relief of Donald C. Pence; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


                       private relief legislation

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Sanford, North Carolina, for 
compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to 
pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now 
deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency 
admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has 
admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment 
under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision 
to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the 
time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice and I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 177

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DONALD C. PENCE.

       (a) Relief.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
     Donald C. Pence, of Sanford, North Carolina, the sum of 
     $31,128 in compensation for the failure of the Department of 
     Veterans' Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity 
     compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of 
     Donald C. Pence, for the period beginning on July 1, 1990, 
     and ending on March 31, 1993.
       (b) Limitation on Fees.--Not more than a total of 10 
     percent of the payment authorized by subsection (a) shall be 
     paid to or received by agents or attorneys for services 
     rendered in connection with obtaining such payment, any 
     contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who 
     violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 178. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


              national center for social work research act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National 
Center for Social Work Research.
  Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services 
throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons 
suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.
  The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information 
with respect to basic and clinical social work research, training, and 
other programs in patient care, with emphasis on service to underserved 
and rural populations.
  Social work research has grown in size and scope since the 1980's. In 
1998, the National Institutes of Mental Health led the way with $17 
million in funding for 61 social work research grants. Dr. Pat Ewalt, 
Dean of the Department of Social Work at the University of Hawaii, is 
one of the foremost leaders in the field of social work research and 
has worked diligently to gain recognition of the many important 
contributions of social work to mental and behavioral health care 
delivery.
  While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work 
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other 
Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of 
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and 
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of 
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral 
and mental health

[[Page 928]]

care outcomes for our nation's children, families, and elderly, and 
others.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we 
must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers 
to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social 
Work can provide in facilitating this process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed on the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 178

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Center for Social 
     Work Research Act''.

     SEC. 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(b)(2) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(F) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
       (b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

         ``Subpart 5--National Center for Social Work Research

     ``SEC. 485G. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

       ``The general purpose of the National Center for Social 
     Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center') 
     is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of 
     information with respect to basic, clinical, and services 
     social work research, training, and other programs in patient 
     care, including child and family care.

     ``SEC. 485H. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in 
     section 485G, the Director of the Center may provide research 
     training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in 
     other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and 
     fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention 
     of disease, health promotion, and the social work care of 
     persons with and families of individuals with acute and 
     chronic illnesses, including child abuse and neglect and 
     child and family care.
       ``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center 
     may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or 
     traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such 
     stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and 
     subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director 
     determines necessary.
       ``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants 
     to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction 
     and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 485I. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist, 
     consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Director of the Center on matters related to the 
     activities carried out by and through the Center and the 
     policies with respect to such activities.
       ``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may 
     recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with 
     section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations, 
     and research and for the acquisition of grounds or 
     construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the 
     Center.
       ``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for 
     the Center--
       ``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the 
     Center with respect to research to be conducted by the 
     Center;
       ``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative 
     agreements for research or training and recommend for 
     approval applications for projects that demonstrate the 
     probability of making valuable contributions to human 
     knowledge; and
       ``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
       ``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal 
     investigation, information relating to studies that are being 
     carried out in the United States or any other country as to 
     the diseases, disorders, or other aspects of human health 
     with respect to which the Center is concerned and, with the 
     approval of the Director of the Center, make such information 
     available through appropriate publications for the benefit of 
     public and private health entities and health professions 
     personnel and scientists and for the information of the 
     general public; and
       ``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and 
     conferences.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed 
     of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not 
     more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the 
     advisory council shall include--
       ``(A) the Secretary, the Director of NIH, the Director of 
     the Center, the Chief Social Work Officer of the Veterans' 
     Administration, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
     Affairs, the Associate Director of Prevention Research at the 
     National Institute of Mental Health, and the Director of the 
     Division of Epidemiology and Services Research (or the 
     designees of such officers); and
       ``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United 
     States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory 
     council to effectively carry out its functions.
       ``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not 
     to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
       ``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be 
     appointed from among the leading representatives of the 
     health and scientific disciplines (including public health 
     and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the 
     activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals 
     shall be professional social workers who are recognized 
     experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or 
     research; and
       ``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be 
     appointed from the general public and shall include leaders 
     in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics, 
     and management.

     The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council 
     in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members 
     do not all expire in the same year.
       ``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any compensation for service on the advisory council. 
     The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including 
     travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate in effect 
     for an individual at grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual 
     appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to 
     fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who 
     has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4 
     years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to 
     the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the prior term expired.
       ``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council 
     among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary 
     shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council 
     shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary 
     may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson 
     of the advisory council. The term of office of the 
     chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the 
     call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director 
     of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year. 
     The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
       ``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the 
     Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to 
     serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The 
     Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory 
     council such staff, information, and other assistance as the 
     council may require to carry out its functions. The Director 
     of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new 
     members of the advisory council to provide such members with 
     such information and training as may be appropriate for their 
     effective participation in the functions of the advisory 
     council.
       ``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council 
     may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under 
     section 485J--
       ``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the 
     advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its 
     objectives; and
       ``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction 
     and program and policy emphasis of the center.
     The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as 
     it may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 485J. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the 
     advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion 
     in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report 
     that shall consist of a description of the

[[Page 929]]

     activities of the Center and program policies of the Director 
     of the Center in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared. The Director of the Center may prepare such 
     additional reports as the Director determines appropriate. 
     The Director of the Center shall provide the advisory council 
     of the Center an opportunity for the submission of the 
     written comments described in section 485I(g).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 179. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive 
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    Health care training act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999, a bill that responds to 
the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and 
disease prevention programs.
  Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently 
lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 
million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are 
without access to a primary care provider. In areas where providers 
exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, 
distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available 
resources. Due to the divesity of rural populations, language and 
cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.
  Compound these problems with limited financial resources and many 
Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, 
especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and 
routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly 
and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional 
problems and substance abuse go undetected and often develop into full 
blown disorders.
  An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for 
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research'' 
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. 
Training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to 
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health 
care providers face a lack of preventive care training opportunities.
  Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers 
must be encouraged. Through interdisciplinary training rural health 
care providers can build a strong foundation from the behavioral, 
biological and psychological sciences to form the most effective 
preventive care possible. Interdisciplinary team prevention training 
will also facilitate both health and mental health clinics sharing 
single service sites and routine consultation between groups. 
Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their servcies as part of 
the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural 
communities.
  The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999 would implement 
the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is 
based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific 
interventions for those risk factors.
  The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places 
a huge financial burden on communities, families and individuals. By 
implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the 
potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 179

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Preventive Health Care 
     Training Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended by the Health Professions Education Partnership Act 
     of 1998, is amended by inserting after section 754 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such 
     applicants to provide preventive health care training, in 
     accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners 
     practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent 
     practicable, include training in health care to prevent both 
     physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence 
     of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of 
     interdisciplinary training project applications.
       ``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using 
     assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care 
     practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant 
     involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a 
     rural area.
       ``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant 
     made or contract entered into under this section shall be 
     used--
       ``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending 
     rural community colleges or other institutions that service 
     predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling 
     the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
       ``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges 
     or other institutions that service predominantly rural 
     communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health 
     care training;
       ``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and 
     program evaluation skills in rural communities;
       ``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and 
     curricula with a specific prevention component; and
       ``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 180. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics 
under State Medicare programs; to the Committee on Finance.


                   nursing school clinics act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing 
School Clinics Act of 1999. This measure builds on our concerted 
efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by 
offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary 
care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are 
most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for 
nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education 
by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
  Nursing school administered primary care clinics are university or 
nonprofit entity primary care centers developed primarily in 
collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities 
they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are 
nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement 
patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of 
nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with 
academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse 
practitioners.
  To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics 
have yielded excellent results including significantly fewer emergency 
room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of 
specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care. The 
LaSalle Neighborhood Nursing Center, for example, reported that in 
1997, fewer than 0.02 percent of the primary care clients reported 
hospitalization for asthma; fewer than 4 percent of expectant mothers 
who enrolled delivered low birth rate infants; and 90 percent of 
infants and young children were immunized on time. In addition, there 
was a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits and a 97 percent 
overall patient satisfaction rate.
  The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (P.L. 105-33) included a provision that, 
for the first time ever, authorized direct Medicare reimbursement of 
all nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, regardless of 
the setting in which services are performed. This provision built upon 
previous legislation that allowed direct reimbursement to individual 
nurse practitioners for individual services provided in rural health 
clinics throughout America. Medicaid

[[Page 930]]

is gradually being reformed to incorporate their services more 
effectively.
  This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery 
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To 
accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would 
be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing 
school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of 
grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the 
incentives and operational resources to establish the clinics.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective 
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider and debate 
various proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must 
approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, 
ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always 
been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School 
Clinics Act of 1999 recognizes the central role they can perform as 
care givers to the medically underserved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 180

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING 
                   SCHOOL CLINICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (27) as paragraph (28); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (26), the following:
       ``(27) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
     subsection (v)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
     nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
     in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the 
     supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other 
     health care provider; and''.
       (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) The term `nursing school clinic services' means 
     services provided by a health care facility operated by an 
     accredited school of nursing which provides primary care, 
     long-term care, mental health counseling, home health 
     counseling, home health care, or other health care services 
     which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
     nurse.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended in subsection 
     (a)(10)(C)(iv), by inserting ``and (27)'' after ``(24)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     be effective with respect to payments made under a State plan 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 
     seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with the first 
     calendar quarter beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 181. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
remove the restriction that a professional psychologist or clinical 
social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility to a patient only under the care of a 
physician, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


  Autonomous Functioning of Clinical Psychologists and Social Workers 
Under Medicare Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility Program

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and 
clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  In my judgment, it is truly unfortunate that Medicare requires 
clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health 
professionals and does not allow these health professionals to function 
to the full extent of their state practice licenses. It is especially 
appropriate that those who need the services of outpatient 
rehabilitation facilities have access to a wide range of social and 
behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical 
social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care services through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the 
Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 181

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A PROFESSIONAL 
                   PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE 
                   SERVICES IN A COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT 
                   REHABILITATION FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER 
                   THE CARE OF A PHYSICIAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon ``(except with respect to 
     services provided by a professional psychologist or a 
     clinical social worker)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 182. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the 
issuance of a prisoner-of-war medal to civilian employees of the 
Federal Government who are forcibly detained or interned by an enemy 
government or a hostile force under wartime conditions; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


establishment of a prisoner of war medal for civilian federal employees

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's 
civilians who have been captured by a hostile government do not receive 
the recognition they deserve. The bill I introduce today would correct 
this inequity and establish a prisoner of war medal for civilian 
employees of the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 182

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PRISONER-OF-WAR MEDAL FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF 
                   THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Authority To Issue Prisoner-of-War Medal.--(1) Subpart 
     A of part III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 23 the following new chapter:

                   ``CHAPTER 25--MISCELLANEOUS AWARDS

``Sec.
``2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue.

     Sec. 2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue

       ``(a) The President shall issue a prisoner-of-war medal to 
     any person who, while serving in any capacity as an officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government, was forcibly detained 
     or interned, not as a result of such person's own willful 
     misconduct--
       ``(1) by an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period of war; or
       ``(2) by a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period other than a period of war in which 
     such person was held under circumstances which the President 
     finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under 
     which members of the armed forces have generally been 
     forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during 
     periods of war.
       ``(b) The prisoner-of-war medal shall be of appropriate 
     design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
       ``(c) Not more than one prisoner-of-war medal may be issued 
     to a person under this section or section 1128 of title 10. 
     However, for each succeeding service that would otherwise 
     justify the issuance of such a medal, the President (in the 
     case of service referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section) or the Secretary concerned (in the case of service 
     referred to in section 1128(a) of title 10) may issue a 
     suitable device to be worn as determined by the President or 
     the Secretary, as the case may be.
       ``(d) For a person to be eligible for issuance of a 
     prisoner-of-war medal, the person's conduct must have been 
     honorable for the period of captivity which serves as the 
     basis for the issuance.
       ``(e) If a person dies before the issuance of a prisoner-
     of-war medal to which he is entitled, the medal may be issued 
     to the person's representative, as designated by the 
     President.
       ``(f) Under regulations to be prescribed by the President, 
     a prisoner-of-war medal that

[[Page 931]]

     is lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault 
     or neglect on the part of the person to whom it was issued 
     may be replaced without charge.
       ``(g) In this section, the term `period of war' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 101(11) of title 38.''.
       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part III of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     chapter 23 the following new item:

``25. Miscellaneous Awards..................................2501''.....

       (b) Applicability.--Section 2501 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to any 
     person who, after April 5, 1917, is forcibly detained or 
     interned as described in subsection (a) of such section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 183. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense 
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.


      use of department of defense commissary and exchange stores

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
enable former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from 
their respective services and who have been rated to have at least a 30 
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both military 
commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is 
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of 
incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel that this 
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned. It also 
serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their 
sacrifices.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 183

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN 
                   DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled 
       former prisoners of war

       ``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war described in 
     subsection (b) may use commissary and exchange stores.
       ``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any 
     former prisoner of war who--
       ``(1) is separated from active duty in the armed forces 
     under honorable conditions; and
       ``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the 
     Secretary of Veterans' Affairs at 30 percent or more.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 101(32) of title 38.
       ``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled former prisoners 
              of war.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 185. A bill to establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                     chief agricultural negotiator

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with 
the Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, that would ensure that 
our nation's farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador. 
Our farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative that will focus solely on opening foreign markets and 
ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and 
services.
  In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first-ever 
monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United 
States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds the alarm for a 
state like Missouri that receives over one-fourth of its farm income 
from agricultural exports.
  When I'm thinking about what is good for the nation's agricultural 
policy, I ask, ``What is good for Missouri?'' That's because Missouri 
is a leader in farming. Missouri is the No. 2 State in the number of 
farms we have--second only to Texas. We have just about every crop 
imaginable, and Missourians are the nation's top producers in many of 
these crops. Missouri is the second leading state for beef cows. 
Missouri is second in hay production. Missouri is one of the top five 
pork producing states. And Missouri is among the top ten states for 
production of rice, cotton, corn, winter wheat, milk, and watermelon.
  With 26 percent of their income coming from exports, Missouri farmers 
need to know that their ability to export will expand over time, rather 
than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them 
out of their market share. During the 1966 farm bill debate, in 
exchange for decreased government payments, our farmers were promised 
more export opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on this 
promise.
  America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent Ambassador who will 
represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face more 
negotiations in the World Trade Organization and regional negotiations 
with Central and South America. There are a lot of opportunities that 
could be opened up to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years.
  Currently, Mr. Peter Scher serves as a Special Negotiator for 
Agriculture, and he has already been very helpful in taking strong 
stands for our farmers and ranchers. I want to thank him for his work 
most recently on getting pork added to the United States' retaliation 
list against the European Union. Senator Kerrey and I, and 40 other 
senators, initiated a broad, bipartisan effort to make the needs of our 
pork farmers a priority, and we appreciated the fact that we could work 
closely with someone whose mission is to serve the interests of our 
nation's farmers. However, while Ambassador Scher may serve our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers until the end of the current 
administration, his position has not been made a permanent position 
through legislation. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation 
today because we want to ensure that the Agriculture Ambassador 
position will transcend administrations.
  The Agricultural Ambassador (the Chief Agricultural Negotiator) will 
be responsible for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade 
agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also, 
under the bill the Chief's Agricultural Negotiator would be a vigorous 
advocate on behalf of U.S. agricultural interests. It is imperative 
that U.S. interests always have a strong, clear voice at international 
negotiations.
  Foreign countries will always have agriculture trade barriers--so 
farmers must always have an ambassador representing their interests. We 
need to send the message to foreign governments that we are serious 
about breaking down barriers in their markets--now and in the future.
  Our farmers and ranchers need to know that their interests will 
always have a sure seat at the table for trade negotiations. Canada and 
Mexico have already concluded free trade arrangements with Chile. 
Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural products to Chile and, in 
most instances, face a zero percent tariff level, while U.S. farmers 
are confronted with an average tariff rate of 11 percent in the same 
market.
  The EU is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will give European 
farmers lower tariffs and more access to their markets at U.S. farmers' 
and ranchers' expense. America must lead, not follow--in our back yard 
and around the world.
  The Agriculture Ambassador bill we are introducing today is supported 
by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. Additionally, State 
branches of these national associations, such as

[[Page 932]]

the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers 
Council, are weighing in their strong support.
  We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and 
ranchers. Making permanent the position of a U.S. Trade Representative 
for Agriculture will guarantee that the interests of American farmers 
and ranchers will always have a prominent seat at the negotiating table 
and will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 185

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

       (a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the 
     position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of 
     the United States Trade Representative. The Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the President, 
     with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade 
     negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S. 
     agricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural 
     Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S. 
     agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator 
     shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade 
     Representative may direct.
       (c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall 
     be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member 
     of the Senior Executive Service.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that will 
establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative.
  As valuable as this position is to our Nation's farmers, I am 
concerned that it is not statutorily part of the Federal Government 
that plays a large role in agriculture trade policy. In December, Peter 
Scher, the current agriculture negotiator was an instrumental player in 
a United States-Canada trade agreement that addressed many of the 
inequities as a result of past trade agreements.
  Montana's farmers, and many other farmers nationwide, are dependent 
on this office to provide oversight and redress for NAFTA and other b- 
and multi-lateral agreements that may have not had U.S. agriculture in 
mind. I say that with a critical tone as past agreements negotiated by 
the current administration were focused on high-tech industries, all 
but ignoring the plight of the American farmer.
  The Canadian trade problem in Montana is monumental, however, it is 
just a small taste of the beginning of our agriculture trade problems 
with the European Union which has been less than compromising on many 
issues.
  The European Union (EU) unfairly restricts imports of U.S. 
agricultural products. Breaking down these barriers to trade must be a 
top priority of the U.S.T.R. American farmers can compete for any 
market, anywhere in the world, but they must have access to a level 
playing field.
  We currently have an extraordinary number of unresolved trade 
disputes with the EU, yet the U.S.T.R. continues to seek U.S./EU trade 
pacts on issues unrelated to agriculture. It is critical that the 
U.S.T.R.'s agricultural trade negotiator be included in these 
discussions. Otherwise, we will be forced to react to poor planning and 
negotiating as we were last month in Canada. In 1996, U.S. agricultural 
exports reached a record level of $60 billion, compared to a total U.S. 
merchandise trade deficit of $170 billion the same year. By 
establishing this position within the U.S.T.R., it is my hope the 
administration will recognize what America's farmers mean to our 
Nation's economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 186. A bill to provide for the reorganization of the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                         ninth circuit division

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
distinguished colleague from Washington. Senator Slade Gorton, in 
introducing legislation that will go far in improving the consistency, 
predictability and coherency of case law in the Ninth Circuit U.S. 
Court of Appeals.
  Our bill, The Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, 
adopts the recommendations of a congressionally-mandated Commission 
that studied the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Retired 
Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, chaired the scholarly Commission.
  The Commission's Report, released last December, calls for a division 
of the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative 
divisions--the Northern, Middle, and Southern. Each of these regional 
divisions would maintain a majority of its judges within its region. 
Each division would have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the 
judicial districts within its region. Further, each division would 
function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. To resolve conflicts 
that may develop between regions, a Circuit Division for Conflict 
Correction would replace the current limited and ineffective en banc 
system. Lastly, the Circuit would remain intact as an administrative 
unit, functioning as it now does.
  It is important to note that the Commission adopted the arguments 
that I and several other Senators have put forth to justify a complete 
division of he Ninth Circuit--Circuit population, record caseloads, and 
inconsistency in judicial decisions. However, the Commission rejected 
an administrative division because it believed it would ``deprive the 
courts now in the Ninth Circuit of the administrative advantages 
afforded by the present circuit configuration and deprive the West and 
the Pacific seaboard of a means for maintaining uniform federal law in 
that area.''
  While I don't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the Commission 
(that an administrative division of the Ninth Circuit is not 
warranted), I strongly agree with the Committee's conclusion that the 
restructuring of the Ninth Circuit as proposed in the Commission's 
Report will ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, 
maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective 
procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, 
and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.''
  Mr. President, swift congressional action is needed. One need only 
look at the contours of the Ninth Circuit to see the need for this 
reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican 
border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the International 
Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands, by any means of measurement, 
the Ninth Circuit is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
  The Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 49 million people, 
well over a third more than the next largest circuit. By 2010, the 
Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be 
more than 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 13 years, which 
inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload.
  Because of its massive size, there often results a decrease in the 
ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the 
Ninth Circuit. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in 
Constitutional interpretation. In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an 
extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. (During the 
Supreme Court's 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 95 
percent of the Ninth Circuit cases heard by the Court.) This lack of 
Constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to 
unnecessary litigation.
  Ninth Circuit Judge, Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as 
follows:

       An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it 
     must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a 
     coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions 
     increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of 
     precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. 
     In short, bigger is not better.


[[Page 933]]


  The legislation that Senator Gorton and I introduce today is a 
sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Northern Division of 
the Ninth Circuit would join Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and 
Idaho. This proposal reflects legislation I introduced in the last 
Congress which created a new Twelfth Circuit consisting of the States 
of the Northwest. Like my previous legislation, the Commission's report 
will go far in creating regional commonality and greater consistency 
and dependency in legal decisions.
  However, it is my strong suggestion that when the Senate Judiciary 
Committee conducts hearings on their legislation, certain modifications 
be closely examined:
  1. Elimination of the requirement that judges within a region are 
required to rotate to other regions of the Circuit;
  2. Adjustment of the regional alignments to include Hawaii, the 
Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam in the Northern Region; and
  3. Shortening the period in which the Federal Judicial Center 
conducts a study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth 
Circuit divisions from 8 years to 3 years.
  Mr. President, Congress has waited long enough to correct the 
problems of the Ninth Circuit. The 49 million residents of the Ninth 
Circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are 
heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate 
process. The Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not 
swift and not always served.
  Mr. President, we have known the problem of the Ninth Circuit for a 
long time. It's time to solve the problem. The Commission's 
recommendations, as reflected in our legislation, is a good first 
start. I hope we can resolve this issue this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Edwards, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 187. A bill to give customers notice and choice about how their 
financial institutions share or sell their personally identifiable 
sensitive financial information, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


               financial information privacy act of 1999

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important 
issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, 
financial information that is held by their bank, securities broker-
dealer, or insurance company. I am introducing a bill to provide basic 
financial privacy protections for our citizens. I am pleased that 
Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and Hollings are joining me in 
the introduction of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999.
  This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every 
American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential 
financial information to a financial institution. Every American should 
know whether the financial institution with which he or she does 
business undertakes to sell or share that personal sensitive 
information with anyone else. Every American should know who would be 
obtaining that information, and why. Every American should have the 
opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that confidential 
information disclosed. Every American should be allowed to make certain 
that the information is correct. And these rights should be 
enforceable.
  This bill, Mr. President, would accomplish these objectives.
  Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a bank, 
broker, or insurance company may take any information it obtains about 
a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that 
information to a third party. For example, they may sell that 
information to a direct marketer or another financial institution, or 
post it on an Internet website without obtaining the customer's consent 
or even notifying the customer.
  The amount of information that can be disclosed is enormous. It 
includes:
  Savings and checking account balances;
  certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances;
  any check an individual writes;
  any check that is deposited into a customer's account;
  stock and mutual fund purchases and sales;
  life insurance payouts; and
  health insurance claims.
  Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever 
for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer 
information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. 
Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly 
affiliating and ``cross-marketing,'' or selling the products of 
affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of 
large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it 
to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the 
customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products 
to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of 
personal privacy without customers' knowledge.
  A June 8, 1998 Business Week commentary entitled ``Big Banker May Be 
Watching You'' underscored the potential abuses:

       Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging 
     you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your 
     exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your 
     lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500 
     after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
       Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but 
     they might not be for long. In the wake of the . . . mad rush 
     by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, consumer 
     advocates are raising valid questions about whether the 
     insurance arms of these new conglomerates will share 
     sensitive medical records with their lending and marketing 
     divisions.

  The New York Times in an October 11, 1998 article entitled ``Privacy 
Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better'' observed that:

       A growing number of bankers, lawmakers, banking regulators 
     and consumer advocates [are] worried about the potential dark 
     side of the mergers sweeping the financial industry. As 
     banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies combine into 
     huge new conglomerates, and with legislation before Congress 
     to make such mergers even easier, there is increasing concern 
     about the amount of personal financial and medical data that 
     can be collected under one roof.

  Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. A 
November 1998 Louis Harris & Associates survey found that 88 percent of 
consumers are concerned about threats to their personal privacy--more 
than half, 55 percent, are ``very concerned.'' 82 percent of consumers 
say they have lost all control over how personal information is used by 
companies and 61 percent do not believe that their rights to privacy as 
a consumer are adequately protected by law or business practices.
  Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when 
expanding their marketing services. For example, in the last 2 years, 
some major consumer companies announced that they would share or sell 
their customers' private data to marketers. When customers learned 
through newspapers stories what was happening, they complained strongly 
and the companies abandoned the planned sales of the data.
  Citizen groups have recently expressed serious concerns about the 
privacy implications of banks' amassing large databases to meet 
proposed regulatory requirements to ``know your customers.''
  The Washington Post in an October 31, 1998 editorial entitled 
``Privacy Here and Abroad'' observed widepsread public concern over 
privacy, stating:

       Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as 
     the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected 
     contexts--everything from employer testing of people's 
     genetic predisposition to resale of their online reading 
     habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or 
     financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready 
     to agree that people should have some measure of control over 
     how and by whom their data will be used.

  Congress has protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In 
response to

[[Page 934]]

public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting private 
companies' disclosure of customer information without customer consent, 
such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video Privacy 
Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television selections 
are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of Americans' 
financial transactions each day have no Federal privacy protection.
  Abuses have arisen from the sharing of financial information without 
a customer's knowledge or permission. For example, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) last year took enforcement action against a 
large bank that had been giving sensitive customer financial 
information, including lists of customers with maturing certificates of 
deposit, to an affiliated stock broker. The SEC found the bank and the 
broker's employees ``blurred the distinction between the bank and the 
broker dealer'' and the broker's sales representatives ``used 
materially false and misleading sales practices'' which ``culminated in 
unsuitable purchases by investors.'' The SEC found many of the targeted 
bank customers were elderly.
  Many groups have voiced support for legislative consumer financial 
privacy protections. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) 
submitted testimony to the Senate Banking Committee expressing concern 
about the vulnerability of citizens, particularly the elderly, and 
saying that:

       AARP supports the principle that consumers should have a 
     voice in the use of their personal financial information. 
     Currently, banks freely share information about their 
     customers' insured deposit accounts with their uninsured, 
     non-banking affiliates. Brokerage affiliates routinely 
     solicit bank customers based upon this information. This not 
     only blurs the line between banking and non-banking 
     functions, but furthers confuses consumers about which 
     products are insures by the bank, and which are merely sold 
     by the bank's securities affiliate without guarantees. 
     Customers should be given the choice as to whether banks can 
     share information about their accounts with any other entity.

  Subsequently, in a letter dated August 25, 1998 with views on H.R. 
10, AARP expressed its special concern about older Americans' 
vulnerability:

       [E]lderly Americans are among those most vulnerable to the 
     complex and fundamental changes already occurring in this 
     period of financial transformation--and they will be put at 
     further risk by the financial mergers permitted by this 
     proposed legislation if the issue of information privacy is 
     not addressed.

  In a written statement before the Banking Committee on June 24, 1998, 
Consumers Union testified,

       As financial services firms diversity and ``cross market'' 
     an array of financial products, their interest in obtaining 
     information about consumers is on a collision course with 
     consumers' interest in protecting their privacy. . . . We 
     believe legislation should prohibit depository institutions 
     and their affiliates from sharing or disclosing information 
     among affiliates or to third parties without first obtaining 
     the customer's written consent.

  A group of seven privacy and consumer groups, representing 
conservative and liberal orientations, including The Free Congress 
Research and Education Foundation, Consumers Federation of America, 
Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy 
International, Privacy Times, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 
wrote on August 26 1998 to all Senate Banking Committee Members to 
``sound an urgent alarm about the lack of protections for consumers' 
financial privacy.''
  On September 9, 1998, The Washington Post published an editorial, ``. 
. . And a Matter of Privacy,'' arguing,

       Along with medical records, financial and credit records 
     probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most 
     expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, 
     though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data 
     has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic 
     data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling 
     of other people's personal information is highly profitable--
     and legal.

  The Post editorial concluded that the privacy amendment to last 
year's proposed financial modernization legislation which I introduced 
with Senators Dodd and Bryan was ``a protection well worth considering, 
especially in the banking context. As the pace of the much-touted 
`information economy' quickens, safeguards against these previous 
unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.''
  The United States now faces pressure from the European Union nations 
as a result of our lack of privacy protections, in comparison with the 
ones implemented by the European Union. The European Union Data 
Protection Directive, which went into effect on October 25, 1998, goes 
much further than any privacy protections in place in the U.S. The 
Directive requires that member states protect privacy rights in the 
collection of data by both the public and private sectors. It prohibits 
the transfer of data without first obtaining the individual's 
unambiguous consent regarding the transfer and use of his or her 
personal financial data.
  The EU Directives provides ``that the transfer to a third country of 
personal data . . . may take place only if . . . the third country in 
question ensures an adequate level of protection.'' Since the European 
Union views current U.S. privacy policy as inadequate, U.S. companies 
that do not provide adequate privacy safeguards may have difficulty 
conducting business in the EU. The Department of Commerce proposed a 
safe harbor so that companies which meet certain guidelines would be 
allowed to conduct business in the EU and send data from the EU to the 
United States. The EU has not accepted the proposed safe harbor as 
adequate, and negotiations continue. Meanwhile, U.S. businesses must 
negotiate private privacy agreements with EU countries or face 
uncertainties in doing business. Congress by enacting privacy 
protection legislation could meet the EU standard and thereby solve 
this problem for American companies.
  Unfortunately, industry self-regulation to protect the privacy of 
information has been tried and, generally, has not worked. Many, if not 
most, consumers are not informed of plans to sell or share their 
financial transaction and experience data, are not notified of a right 
to object, have no access to verify the accuracy of data, and have no 
independent body to enforce privacy protection. Recent studies by the 
FTC and the FDIC of on-line Internet privacy protection found self-
regulation to be ineffective. Privacy protections for ``off-line'' 
transactions are far weaker.
  I believe that the protection of the privacy of customers' personal 
financial information is much too important to ignore any longer. 
Therefore, I am, along with Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and 
Hollings, introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. 
This bill would require the Federal banking regulators--the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Company, Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision--and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules to protect the 
privacy of financial information relating to the customers of the 
institutions they regulate.
  The regulators would define ``confidential customer information'' in 
a way that includes balances, maturity dates, transactions, and payouts 
in savings accounts, certificates of deposit, securities holding and 
insurance policies. The regulators would require an institution to:
  (1) tell its customers what information it will sell or share, and 
when, to whom and for what purposes it will be sold or shared;
  (2) give customers the right to ``opt out,'' which means they can say 
``no'' to the sharing or selling information to affiliates--unless the 
customer objects, institutions could sell or share customer financial 
data; and
  (3) obtain a customer's informed consent before selling or sharing 
confidential customer information with an unaffiliated third party.
  Under the Act, regulated financial institutions would be required to 
allow the customer to review the information to be disclosed for 
accuracy and to correct errors. Also, these institutions could not use 
confidential customer information obtained from another entity, such as 
an insurance underwriter,

[[Page 935]]

unless that entity had given its customers the same type of privacy 
protections as the regulated entities had given their customers.
  Disclosure of data under several circumstances would be exempted from 
coverage, including disclosure of information that is not personally 
identifiable, disclosure necessary to execute the customer's 
transaction, and other limited purposes. The Federal bank and 
securities regulators would enforce the regulations.
  The bill recognizes the complexity of the subject matter involved. 
Rather than have Congress micromanage a solution, we would leave it to 
the regulators with a direction as to the scope and purposes that 
should be followed. This approach would afford an opportunity for 
public notice and comment, so all of those affected could present their 
arguments. The banking and securities regulators would develop the 
rules to implement these broad principles in the way most appropriate 
for the industry, balancing the consumer's privacy choice with 
business' desire to sell or share their customer's sensitive financial 
information with others.
  As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry 
marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy 
concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their 
sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do 
so. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving 
consumers enforceable rights of notice, consent, and access through 
passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999, together with a brief 
summary of the bill and some newspaper articles be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 187

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Financial Information 
     Privacy Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``covered person'' means a person that is 
     subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Federal financial 
     regulatory authorities; and
       (2) the term ``Federal financial regulatory authorities'' 
     means--
       (A) each of the Federal banking agencies, as that term is 
     defined in section 3(z) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; 
     and
       (B) the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     SEC. 3. PRIVACY OF CONFIDENTIAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION.

       (a) Rulemaking.--The Federal financial regulatory 
     authorities shall jointly issue final rules to protect the 
     privacy of confidential customer information relating to the 
     customers of covered persons, not later than 270 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act (and shall issue a notice 
     of proposed rulemaking not later than 150 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act), which rules shall--
       (1) define the term ``confidential customer information'' 
     to be personally identifiable data that includes 
     transactions, balances, maturity dates, payouts, and payout 
     dates, of--
       (A) deposit and trust accounts;
       (B) certificates of deposit;
       (C) securities holdings; and
       (D) insurance policies;
       (2) require that a covered person may not disclose or share 
     any confidential customer information to or with any 
     affiliate or agent of that covered person if the customer to 
     whom the information relates has provided written notice, as 
     described in paragraphs (4) and (5), to the covered person 
     prohibiting such disclosure or sharing--
       (A) with respect to an individual that became a customer on 
     or after the effective date of such rules, at the time at 
     which the business relationship between the customer and the 
     covered person is initiated and at least annually thereafter; 
     and
       (B) with respect to an individual that was a customer 
     before the effective date of such rules, at such time 
     thereafter that provides a reasonable and informed 
     opportunity to the customer to prohibit such disclosure or 
     sharing and at least annually thereafter;
       (3) require that a covered person may not disclose or share 
     any confidential customer information to or with any person 
     that is not an affiliate or agent of that covered person 
     unless the covered person has first--
       (A) given written notice to the customer to whom the 
     information relates, as described in paragraphs (4) and (5); 
     and
       (B) obtained the informed written or electronic consent of 
     that customer for such disclosures or sharing;
       (4) require that the covered person provide notices and 
     consent acknowledgments to customers, as required by this 
     section, in separate and easily identifiable and 
     distinguishable form;
       (5) require that the covered person provide notice as 
     required by this section to the customer to whom the 
     information relates that describes what specific types of 
     information would be disclosed or shared, and under what 
     general circumstances, to what specific types of businesses 
     or persons, and for what specific types of purposes such 
     information could be disclosed or shared;
       (6) require that the customer to whom the information 
     relates be provided with access to the confidential customer 
     information that could be disclosed or shared so that the 
     information may be reviewed for accuracy and corrected or 
     supplemented;
       (7) require that, before a covered person may use any 
     confidential customer information provided by a third party 
     that engages, directly or indirectly, in activities that are 
     financial in nature, as determined by the Federal financial 
     regulatory authorities, the covered person shall take 
     reasonable steps to assure that procedures that are 
     substantially similar to those described in paragraphs (2) 
     through (6) have been followed by the provider of the 
     information (or an affiliate or agent of that provider); and
       (8) establish a means of examination for compliance and 
     enforcement of such rules and resolving consumer complaints.
       (b) Limitation.--The rules prescribed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) may not prohibit the release of confidential 
     customer information--
       (1) that is essential to processing a specific financial 
     transaction that the customer to whom the information relates 
     has authorized;
       (2) to a governmental, regulatory, or self-regulatory 
     authority having jurisdiction over the covered financial 
     entity for examination, compliance, or other authorized 
     purposes;
       (3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
       (4) to a consumer reporting agency, as defined in section 
     603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for inclusion in a 
     consumer report that may be released to a third party only 
     for a purpose permissible under section 604 of that Act; or
       (5) that is not personally identifiable.
       (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the rules 
     prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or 
     alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
                                  ____


             [From the Washington Post, September 9, 1998]

                     . . . And a Matter of Privacy

       Along with medical records, financial and credit records 
     probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most 
     expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, 
     though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data 
     has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic 
     data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling 
     of other people's personal information is highly profitable--
     and legal.
       Just how much of it is legal in the financial arena, 
     though, is a complicated question. The Senate, struggling 
     with a banking bill, is weighing a proposed amendment that 
     would draw clearer lines. A judge at the Federal Trade 
     Commission, after years of trying to police the sale of 
     credit information to telemarketers, two weeks ago ordered 
     one of the country's largest credit reporting bureaus to stop 
     selling customers' sensitive data to such marketers in 
     violation, the agency said, of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
       The Senate's attention to financial privacy comes in the 
     form of a proposed amendment to a banking deregulation bill, 
     already passed by the House, that would allow banks to merge 
     more freely with the providers of other financial services, 
     such as insurers. Once such institutions can merge, though, 
     under current law they are under no restrictions from sharing 
     even otherwise protected customer information from division 
     to division. (The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which offers 
     some tough not comprehensive protection for credit 
     information, doesn't impose the same restrictions on 
     affiliated institutions.)
       For instance, watchdog groups say, if Citibank merges with 
     Travelers Inc. insurance as expected, information about your 
     bank balance or a bounced check could be used to deny you 
     insurance coverage. Conversely, data from a medical exam for 
     insurance coverage could be shared with your bank and used to 
     deny you a loan. Milder possibilities include the use of 
     knowledge about your financial assets being shared with or 
     sold to marketers who wish to target customers of a given 
     income bracket.
       An amendment proposed by Sens. Paul Sarbanes and 
     Christopher Dodd is likely to be weighed by the committee 
     marking up the Senate bill this week or next. It would block 
     such possibilities by prohibiting sharing or pooling of data 
     not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act--known generally 
     as ``experience and transaction data,'' and including

[[Page 936]]

     account balances and activity--for any purpose beyond the 
     reason it was collected, unless the customer gives specific 
     permission.
       This goes well beyond existing privacy protections, which 
     mostly require that the customer actively ``opt out'' of such 
     uses--a difficult proposition when the customer probably has 
     not the slightest idea that such swapping and spreading of 
     information is legal to begin with. For that very reason, 
     it's a protection well worth considering, especially in the 
     banking context. As the pace of the much-touted ``information 
     economy'' quickens, safeguards against these previously 
     unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.
                                  ____


              [From the New York Times, October 11, 1998]

            Privacy Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better

                           (By Leslie Wayne)

       Imagine you are being treated for breast cancer, a fact 
     known to your Travelers' insurance agent from your medical 
     tests and insurance forms. Imagine also that you are applying 
     for a mortgage from, say, Citibank, where you've banked for 
     years and which has just merged with Travelers Group. Despite 
     your excellent credit rating, your mortgage is denied by 
     Citibank for reasons that are unclear.
       Or suppose you've just inherited lots of money from a 
     relative's life insurance policy and you put the money into 
     your Fleet Bank account. Pretty soon you get a call from a 
     representative of Quick & Reilly, a brokerage firm you have 
     never heard of but which is owned by Fleet. The broker is 
     equipped with surprisingly detailed knowledge of your 
     financial situation--along with a few ideas about how to 
     invest your windfall.
       Both situations may be hypothetical but they aren't so far-
     fetched, according to a growing number of bankers, lawmakers, 
     banking regulators and consumer advocates worried about the 
     potential dark side of the mergers sweeping the financial 
     industry. As banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies 
     combine into huge new conglomerates, and with legislation 
     before Congress to make such mergers even easier, there is 
     increasing concern about the amount of personal financial and 
     medical data that can be collected under one roof.


                           fear of disclosure

       So far, this privacy debate has centered mainly on the use 
     of patients' medical records, especially by health 
     maintenance organizations. But a new twist has been added as 
     banks have expanded into businesses like securities and 
     insurance sales, both of which involve the collection of a 
     wide range of personal information.
       Just last week, Citicorp and Travelers Group completed 
     their $50 billion merger, creating the world's largest 
     financial services conglomerate, with 70 million customers. 
     The new company, Citigroup, has access to a wealth of 
     customer information, including mutual fund accounts, health 
     claims on insurance policies, and credit card, mortgage and 
     car loan balances. Many consumer advocates are worried that 
     such sensitive data can easily be transferred from one part 
     of the company to another and possibly be disclosed to 
     outside parties.
       ``It is very important for banks to realize the challenge 
     they face in the privacy area is something new, different and 
     more difficult than what they've dealt with before,'' said 
     Julie Williams, Acting Comptroller of the Currency. ``It's in 
     their self-interest to recognize privacy as a customer 
     concern and deal with it successfully or they may be subject 
     to more restrictive controls on the ability to use this 
     information.''
       Nationsbank, which is acquiring the BankAmerica 
     Corporation, has already run into trouble with customer 
     privacy. The company recently paid nearly $40 million to 
     settle a class-action suit and end a Government investigation 
     after more than 18,000 customers many of them elderly, were 
     sold complex derivative securities that were far too risky 
     for them. Nationbank's brokerage arm had used the bank's 
     customer list to target people to approach, many of whom 
     mistakenly believed that the derivatives were safe and 
     insured. As a result, Nationsbank has imposed new limits on 
     the use of private data.
       ``Talking to a banker used to be like going to confession 
     or seeing a psychiatrist--we thought the information was 
     protected,'' said Edmund Mierzwinski, executive director of 
     the U.S. Public Interest Group.
       Financial services companies argue that the ability to swap 
     data between one arm and another is a driving force behind 
     many mergers. Banks want to broaden their ability to ``cross-
     market'' credit cards to checking deposit customers or sell 
     stocks and bonds to holders of car loans. But bankers say 
     they must be careful to balance this desire to sell new 
     products against the need to maintain the trust of their 
     customers.
       ``We are very concerned,'' said Edward Yingling, executive 
     director for government relations at the American Bankers 
     Association. ``The key question is, what is the proper 
     balance between appropriate and valuable cross-marketing and 
     invasions of privacy? No one believes medical records should 
     be used for cross-marketing in ways that would be invasive. 
     It's more difficult when financial information can be used to 
     show our customers that other products might be very good for 
     them. That's what everyone has to wrestle with.''


                                promises

       Current law allows bank customers to sign ``opt out'' 
     forms, preventing one part of a bank from giving personal 
     information to another. The Comptroller's office has found, 
     however, that few banks highlight this option. ``Most bank 
     customers can't ever recall seeing anything like this,'' Ms. 
     Williams said.
       As part of its merger application to the Federal Reserve 
     Board, Citigroup made a ``Global Privacy Promise,'' which 
     would ``provide customers the right to prevent Citigroup from 
     sharing customer information with others, including 
     affiliates, for cross-marketing purposes.'' Customers will 
     also be given opt-out provisions and Travelers has pledged 
     that it will not share the medical or health information of 
     its insurance customers ``for marketing purposes.'' Consumer 
     advocates like Mr. Mierzwinski say such protections should be 
     a matter of law, and not established case by case.
       Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, has 
     been leading a push in Congress for greater financial privacy 
     restrictions.
       ``There are hardly any safeguards out there,'' Mr. Dodd 
     told the Senate Banking Committee last month. ``As each year 
     goes by, the vulnerability of the people we represent becomes 
     more exposed. The longer we delay, we are exposing millions 
     to unfair access by people who should not have access.''
                                  ____


              [From the Washington Post, October 31, 1998]

                        Privacy Here and Abroad

       Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as 
     the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected 
     contexts--everything from employer testing of people's 
     genetic predispositions to resale of their online reading 
     habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or 
     financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready 
     to agree that people should have some measure of control over 
     how and by whom their data will be used. But how, other than 
     piece-meal, can such control be established, and what would a 
     more general right to data privacy look like?
       One approach very different from that of the United States, 
     as it happens, is about to be thrust upon the consciousness 
     of many American businesses as a European law called the 
     European Union Data Privacy Directive goes into effect. The 
     European directive has drawn attention not only because the 
     European approach to and history on data privacy are sharply 
     different from our own but also because the new directive 
     comes with prohibitions on export that would crimp the 
     options of any company that does business both here and in 
     Europe.
       The directive imposes sweeping prohibitions on the use of 
     any personal data without the explicit consent of the person 
     involved, for that purpose only (repeated uses or resale 
     require repeated permission) and also bars companies from 
     exporting any such data to any country not ruled by the EU to 
     have ``adequate'' privacy protection measures already in 
     place. The Europeans have not ruled the United States 
     ``adequate'' in this regard--no surprise there--though 
     individual industries may pass muster or fall under special 
     exemptions.
       That means, for instance, that multinational companies 
     cannot allow U.S. offices access to personnel data on 
     European employees, and airlines can't swap reservations data 
     without restrictions. More to the point, they can't share or 
     sell the kinds of data on customers that in this country are 
     now routinely treated as another possible income stream. 
     Would such restraints be a boon to customers on these shores 
     too? Or will Americans, as the data companies frequently 
     argue, find instead that they want the convenience and ``one-
     on-one marketing'' that this constant dossier-compiling makes 
     possible?
       In one early case, a U.S. airline is being sued in Sweden 
     to prevent its compiling and selling a database of, for 
     instance, passengers who requested kosher meals or wheelchair 
     assistance on arrival from transatlantic flights. Do 
     customers want the ``convenience'' of this kind of tracking, 
     and if not, how might they--we--avoid having it offered? The 
     contrast between systems is a chance to consider which of the 
     many business-as-usual uses of data in this country rise to 
     the level of a privacy violation from which citizens should 
     be shielded by law.
                                  ____


                   [From Business Week, June 8, 1998]

                     Big Banker May Be Watching You

                            (By Dean Foust)

       Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging 
     you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your 
     exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your 
     lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500 
     after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
       Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but 
     they might not be for long. In the wake of the proposed 
     megamerger between Citicorp and Travelers Group Inc. and the 
     mad rush by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, 
     consumer advocates are raising valid questions about whether 
     the insurance arms of these new conglomerates will

[[Page 937]]

     share sensitive medical records with their lending and 
     marketing divisions.
       Critics fear that as the new Citigroup and other planned 
     banking behemoths strain to justify their hefty sticker 
     prices, they'll face increasing pressure to exploit customer 
     data for profit. But if they overstep their bounds, the 
     financial industry ``risks a customer backlash that could . . 
     . lead to restrictions on your ability to use previous 
     information resources,'' warns Acting Comptroller of the 
     Currency Julie L. Williams.
       Banking representatives downplay the risks, arguing that 
     lenders would be loath to use health records in the credit 
     process for fear of violating the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act. And at Citicorp, spokesman Jack Morris says that ``I 
     don't think we have even thought about'' using Travelers' 
     insurance records.
       But the biggest justification for creating conglomerates 
     like Citigroup--and the combined Bank of America-NationsBank 
     Corp.--is exactly the synergy from cross-marketing new 
     products. In 1996, bankers lobbied Congress vigorously for 
     changes in the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 that let 
     them share more credit information with affiliates dealing in 
     life insurance, mortgages, and credit cards--much to the 
     chagrin of activists. ``We think it's inappropriate for banks 
     to use information in ways that consumers didn't expect,'' 
     says Susan Grant of the National Consumers League.


                              boilerplate

       Unfortunately, banks sharing data with affiliates are 
     exempt from some of the regulations governing independent 
     credit bureaus. These bureaus are where lenders up till now 
     have turned to determine a borrower's creditworthiness. But 
     while Congress prohibited the credit bureaus from dealing in 
     medical records without a customer's consent, the new 
     financial hybrids are under no such restrictions. And while 
     banks are required to allow customers to opt out of having 
     their data used for other purposes, banks generally do little 
     to alert customers to their rights--often burying it in legal 
     boilerplate.
       If financial firms don't want Congress to intervene, they 
     should erect Chinese walls to prevent confidential health 
     records from being used in the marketing or lending process. 
     Otherwise, the extra dollars generated from ``synergy'' will 
     be diminished by the cost of incurring the public's wrath.
                                  ____


          Summary of Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999

     Sec. 1. Short title
       The bill will be called the ``Financial Information Privacy 
     Act of 1999.''
     Sec. 2. Definitions
       The Act defines ``federal financial regulatory 
     authorities'' to include the Fed, FDIC, OTS, OCC and SEC, and 
     the term ``covered person'' to mean persons subject to the 
     regulatory authorities' jurisdictions.
     Sec. 3. Privacy of confidential customer information
       (A) Rulemaking.--The Act requires the Federal Reserve, 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and 
     Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules within 
     270 days of the Act's enactment to protect the privacy of 
     financial information relating to the customers of the 
     institutions they regulate.
       (1) The regulators will define ``confidential customer 
     information,'' which will include transactions, balances, 
     maturity dates, payouts and payout dates of deposit and trust 
     account, certificates of deposit, securities holdings and 
     insurance policies.
       (2) The customers will have the right to prohibit 
     disclosure or sharing confidential customer information with 
     affiliates of the institution (opt-out).
       (3) The institutions could not disclose or share 
     confidential customer information with unaffiliated third 
     parties unless the customer has consented to disclosure (opt-
     in) after receiving notification.
       (4) The notices and consent acknowledgments provided to 
     customers must be ``in separate and easily identifiable and 
     distinguishable form.''
       (5) The notices would describe the types of information to 
     be disclosed or shared and under what circumstances, to what 
     types of businesses or persons and for what purposes the 
     information could be disclosed or shared.
       (6) Customers must be provided with access to the 
     confidential customer information that could be shared to 
     review for accuracy.
       (7) Covered persons cannot use confidential customer 
     information from other sources unless the covered persons 
     have taken reasonable steps to assure that procedures 
     substantially similar to those provided for in the Act have 
     been followed.
       (8) The regulators shall establish a means of examination 
     for compliance and enforcement and resolving consumer 
     complaints.
       (B) Limitation.--The Act contains several exceptions, 
     circumstances under which the privacy protections do not 
     apply. The Act would not prohibit the release of confidential 
     customer information:
       (1) that is essential to processing a specific financial 
     transaction that the customer has authorized;
       (2) to a government, regulatory or self-regulatory 
     authority with jurisdiction over the financial institution 
     for examination, compliance or other authorized purposes;
       (3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
       (4) to a consumer reporting agency for inclusion in a 
     consumer report to be released to a third party for a 
     permissible purpose; or
       (5) that is not personally identifiable.
       (C) Construction.--``Nothing in this section or the rules 
     prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or 
     alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Sarbanes to 
introduce the Financial Information Privacy Act. This important 
legislation would give customers notice and choice about whether and 
how their financial institutions share or sell their confidential 
financial information.
  The right to privacy is among the most cherished of our 
constitutional rights. But this right has been under assault in a 
number of areas, including with regard to citizens' financial records, 
medical records, and prescription drug and retail purchases. This bill 
is an important first step in protecting consumers' most personal, 
sensitive financial information: their bank account balances, 
transactions involving their stocks and mutual funds, and payouts on 
their insurance policies.
  This information has become a commodity and is being distributed and 
sold among businesses all over the world but without the knowledge or 
consent of the consumers whose very own information is being conveyed. 
The sharing of their most sensitive, private financial information has 
become increasingly prevalent given two key factors: (1) technological 
advances which facilitate the collection and retrieval of information; 
and (2) the formation of new, diversified business affiliations, under 
which companies can more easily access personal data on each other's 
customers.
  In this environment, there are dangers of misuse and abuse of 
confidential financial information. For instance, we know of instances 
where, without customer permission, some banks have provided in-house, 
affiliate brokers with lists of older customers who have maturing CDs. 
The brokers then solicited these consumers for risky investments, which 
they mislead the customer to believe were FDIC-insured.
  The Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 would require banks and 
securities firms to protect the privacy of their customers' financial 
records. Customers would be given the opportunity to prevent banks and 
securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to 
affiliates. Before banks or securities firms could disclose or sell the 
information to third parties, they would be required to give notice to 
the customer and obtain the express written permission of the consumer 
before making any such disclosure.
  Last September, Senator Sarbanes and I proposed legislation similar 
to the Financial Information Privacy Act as an amendment to HR 10, the 
Financial Services Modernization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment was 
defeated in the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 8-10 along party 
lines. I was disappointed by this outcome, but am heartened by comments 
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who acknowledge financial 
privacy as an important issue. I look forward to working with both 
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and other 
interested members on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support this proposal. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Sarbanes in 
introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. Senator 
Sarbanes, along with Senators Dodd and Bryan, have been leaders on the 
Senate Banking Committee in protecting the privacy of personal 
financial information.
  Mr. President, the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental 
right protected by the Constitution of the United States. But the 
American people are growing more and more concerned over encroachments 
on their personal privacy.
  It seems that everywhere we turn, new technologies, new 
communications media, and new business services created with the best 
of intentions and highest of expectations also pose a

[[Page 938]]

threat to our ability to keep our lives to ourselves, to live, work and 
think without having giant corporations looking over our shoulders.
  This incremental encroachment on our privacy has happened through the 
lack of safeguards on personal, financial and medical information about 
each of us that can be stolen, sold or mishandled and find its way into 
the wrong hands with the push of a button.
  Our right of privacy has become one of the most vulnerable rights in 
the information age. The digitalization of information and the 
explosion in the growth of computing and electronic networking offer 
tremendous potential benefits to the way Americans live, work, conduct 
commerce, and interact with their government. But the new technology 
also presents new threats to our individual privacy and security, in 
particular, our ability to control the terms under which our personal 
information is acquired, disclosed, and used.
  In the financial services industry, for example, conglomerates are 
offering a wide variety of services, each of which requires a customer 
to provide financial, medical or other personal information. And 
nothing in the law prevents subsidiaries within the conglomerate from 
sharing this information for uses other than the use the customer 
thought he or she was providing it for. In fact, under current Federal 
law, a financial institution can sell, share, or publish savings 
account balances, certificates of deposit maturity dates and balances, 
stock and mutual fund purchases and sales, life insurance payouts and 
health insurance claims.
  Our legislation would protect the privacy of this financial 
information by directing the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to jointly promulgate rules requiring financial institutions they 
regulate to: (1) inform their customers what information is to be 
disclosed, and when, to whom and for what purposes the information is 
to be disclosed; (2) allow customers to review the information for 
accuracy; and (3) for new customers, obtain the customers' consent to 
disclosure, and for existing customers, give the customers a reasonable 
opportunity to object to disclosure. These financial institutions could 
use confidential customer information from other entities only if the 
entities had given their customers similar privacy protections.
  I hope the Financial Information Privacy Act is just the beginning of 
this new Congress' efforts to address the privacy issues raised by 
ultra competitive marketplaces in the information age.
  For the past three Congresses, I have introduced comprehensive 
medical privacy legislation. I plan to soon introduce the Medical 
Information Privacy and Security Act to establish the first 
comprehensive federal medical privacy law. It would close the existing 
gaps in federal privacy laws to ensure the protection of personally 
identifiable health information. Medical records contain the most 
intimate, sensitive information about a person and must be safeguarded.
  This Congress will also need to consider how our privacy safeguards 
for personal, financial and medical information measure up to the tough 
privacy standards established by the European Union Data Protection 
Directive, which took effect on October 25, 1998. That could be a big 
problem for American businesses, since the new rules require EU member 
countries to prohibit the transmission of personal data to or through 
any non-EU country that fails to provide adequate data protection as 
defined under European law.
  European officials have said repeatedly over the past year that the 
patchwork of privacy laws in the United States may not meet their 
standards. Our law is less protective than EU standards in a variety of 
respects on a range of issues, including requirements to obtain data 
fairly and lawfully; limitations on the collection of sensitive data; 
limitations on the purpose of data collection; bans on the collection 
and storage of unnecessary personal information; requirements regarding 
data accuracy; limitations regarding duration of storage; and 
centralized supervision of privacy protections and practices.
  The problem is not that Europe protects privacy too much. The problem 
is our own failure to keep U.S. privacy laws up to date. The EU 
Directive is an example of the kind of privacy protection that American 
consumers need and do not have. It has encouraged European companies to 
develop good privacy techniques. It has produced policies, including 
policies on cryptography, that are consistent with the interests of 
both consumers and businesses.
  The Financial Information Privacy Act updates U.S. privacy laws in 
the evolving financial services industry. It calls for fundamental 
protections of the personal, confidential financial information of all 
American citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 188. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of 
water conservation and quality improvements; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


             Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, twenty-five years after enactment of the 
Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal 
that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for 
fishing and swimming.
  After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to 
solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new 
tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing.
  The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from 
factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to 
controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining 
water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of 
factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of 
sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots.
  In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully 
meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are 
contamination form runoff and meeting the standards for water 
temperatures.
  In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. 
But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water 
quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff 
controls.
  A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of 
the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated 
or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for 
increased stream flows.
  We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water 
available for this use through increased water conservation and more 
efficient use of existing water supplies.
  The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce 
wasteful water use.
  In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single 
largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of 
water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a 
significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage from irrigation 
canals.
  In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water 
for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain 
rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water 
available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency 
measures to reduce water loss.
  The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's 
changing water needs. In many Western States, supply problems can be 
addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users 
implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures 
consistent with State water law.
  And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving 
greater flexibility to States to use Clean

[[Page 939]]

Water Act funds to control polluted runoff, if that's where the money 
is needed most.
  Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in 
introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation 
measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not 
required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by 
water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would 
also be entirely voluntary.
  The conservation program would be structured to allow participating 
users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or 
more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. 
This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water 
available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using 
the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and 
gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to 
solve water quality problems in other areas.
  My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, 
the Environmental Defense Fund and the Oregon Water Trust.
  I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to 
use their Clean Water funds for water conservation or runoff control 
when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality 
problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 188

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Conservation and 
     Quality Incentives Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in many parts of the United States, water supplies are 
     insufficient to meet current or expected future demand during 
     certain times of the year;
       (2) a number of factors (including growing populations, 
     increased demands for food and fiber production, and new 
     environmental demands for water) are placing increased 
     demands on existing water supply sources;
       (3) increased water conservation, water quality 
     enhancement, and more efficient use of water supplies could 
     help meet increased demands on water sources;
       (4) in States that recognize rights to conserved water for 
     persons who conserve it, irrigation suppliers, farmers, 
     ranchers, and other users could gain rights to use conserved 
     water while also increasing the quantity of water available 
     for other beneficial uses by implementing measures to reduce 
     water loss during transport to, or application on, the 
     fields;
       (5) reducing the quantity of water lost during transport to 
     the fields and improving water quality can help areas better 
     meet changing population and economic needs; and
       (6) the role of the Federal Government in helping meet 
     those changing water needs should be to provide financial 
     assistance to help irrigators, farmers, and ranchers 
     implement practical, cost-effective water quality and 
     conservation measures.

     SEC. 3. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER 
                   CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1383) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, (4) for construction of water conservation 
     improvements by eligible recipients under subsection (i)''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Water Conservation Improvements.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this 
     subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a 
     municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation, 
     special district, conservancy district, irrigation district, 
     water users' association, tribal authority, intermunicipal, 
     interstate, or State agency, nonprofit private organization, 
     a member of such an association, authority, agency, or 
     organization, or a lending institution, located in a State 
     that has enacted laws that--
       ``(A) provide a water user who invests in a water 
     conservation improvement with a right to use water conserved 
     by the improvement, as allowed by State law;
       ``(B) provide authority to reserve minimum flows of streams 
     in the State; and
       ``(C) prohibit transactions that adversely affect existing 
     water rights.
       ``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial 
     assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to 
     an eligible recipient to construct a water conservation 
     improvement, including--
       ``(A) piping or lining of an irrigation canal;
       ``(B) wastewater and tailwater recovery or recycling;
       ``(C) irrigation scheduling;
       ``(D) water use measurement or metering;
       ``(E) on-field irrigation efficiency improvements; and
       ``(F) any other improvement that the State determines will 
     provide water conservation benefits.
       ``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an 
     eligible recipient in the water conservation improvement 
     shall be voluntary.
       ``(4) Use of conserved water.--The quantity of water 
     conserved through the water conservation improvement shall be 
     allocated in accordance with applicable State law, including 
     any applicable State law requiring a portion of the conserved 
     water to be used for instream flow enhancement or other 
     conservation purposes.
       ``(5) Limitation on use for irrigated agriculture.--
     Conserved water made available under paragraph (4) shall not 
     be used to irrigate land that has not previously been 
     irrigated unless the use is authorized by State law and will 
     not diminish water quality.''.

     SEC. 4. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER QUALITY 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1383) (as amended by section 3) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, and (5) for 
     construction of water quality improvements or practices by 
     eligible recipients under subsection (j)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Water Quality Improvements.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this 
     subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a 
     municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation, 
     special district, conservancy district, irrigation district, 
     water users' association or member of such an association, 
     tribal authority, intermunicipal, interstate, or State 
     agency, nonprofit private organization, or lending 
     institution.
       ``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial 
     assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to 
     an eligible recipient to construct or establish water quality 
     improvements or practices that the State determines will 
     provide water quality benefits.
       ``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an 
     eligible recipient in the water quality improvements or 
     practices shall be voluntary.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 601(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and (4) for construction of water conservation 
     and quality improvements by eligible recipients under 
     subsections (i) and (j) of section 603''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 189. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of 
Memorial Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                              memorial day

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many 
Americans by making the last Monday in May, Memorial Day, we have lost 
sight of the significance of this day to our nation. Instead of using 
Memorial Day as a time to honor and reflect on the sacrifices made by 
Americans in combat, many Americans use the day as a celebration of the 
beginning of summer. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and 
authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this 
legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation 
designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and 
ceremonies honoring American veterans. This legislation would help 
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they 
have made on behalf of our nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 940]]



                                 S. 189

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF 
                   MEMORIAL DAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended in the item relating to Memorial Day by 
     striking out ``the last Monday in May.'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``May 30.''.
       (b) Display of Flag.--Section 2(d) of the joint resolution 
     entitled ``An Act to codify and emphasize existing rules and 
     customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the 
     United States of America'', approved June 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C. 
     174(d)), is amended by striking out ``the last Monday in 
     May;'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 30;''.
       (c) Proclamation.--The President is authorized and 
     requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of 
     the United States to observe Memorial Day as a day for prayer 
     and ceremonies showing respect for American veterans of wars 
     and other military conflicts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 190. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected 
disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same 
manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces 
are entitled to travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


   on travel on military aircraft by veterans with service-connected 
                              disabilities

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill which is 
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation 
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military 
aircraft to those who have been completely disabled in the service of 
our country.
  Currently, retired members of the Armed Forces are permitted to 
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights 
within the continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the 
same benefits for 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans.
  Surely, we owe these heroic men and women, who have given so much to 
our country, a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them 
for the sacrifice they have made on behalf of our nation, but we can 
surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in 
which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these 
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from 
all over the country attesting to the importance attesting to this 
issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their 
concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 190

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED 
                   FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1060a the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled 
       former members of the armed forces

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member 
     of the armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the 
     laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs for a 
     service-connected disability rated as total to travel, in the 
     same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the 
     armed forces, on unscheduled military flights within the 
     continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
     operated by the Military Airlift Command. The Secretary of 
     Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available 
     basis.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 1060a the following new item:

``1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members 
              of the armed forces.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 191. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the 
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed 
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


                           filipino veterans

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain 
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on 
behalf of the United States during World War II.
  Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side and 
sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation 
would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified 
individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits 
to which, I believe, they are entitled. As this population becomes 
older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to 
the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us 
the great nation we are today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 191

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       (a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person 
     who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall determine whether such person performed any 
     military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which 
     qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or 
     other benefits under the laws of the United States.
       (b) Information To Be Considered.--In making a 
     determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider all information and evidence 
     (relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) available 
     to the Secretary, including information and evidence 
     submitted by the applicant, if any.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

       (a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary 
     shall issue a certificate of service to each person 
     determined by the Secretary to have performed military 
     service described in section 1(a).
       (b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of 
     service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for 
     the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively 
     establish the period, nature, and character of the military 
     service described in the certificate.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

       An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or 
     parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall 
     be treated as an application submitted by such person.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

       The Secretary may not consider for the purpose of this Act 
     any application received by the Secretary more than two years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act as a result of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out sections 
     1, 3, and 4.

     SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS' 
                   AFFAIRS.

       Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans benefits by 
     reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department of 
     Veterans' Affairs pursuant to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary of Veterans' Affairs.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
       (2) The term ``World War II'' means the period beginning on 
     December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 1946.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 192. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the

[[Page 941]]

Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                   the fair minimum wage act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator 
Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act of 1999. This proposal is strongly supported by President 
Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard 
Gephardt, and many of their colleagues.
  The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it 
by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on September 1, 
1999, and another 50 cent increase on September 1, 2000, so that the 
minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 by the turn of the century.
  These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their 
families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour 
today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million 
Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to 
benefit from the increase.
  To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should 
be at least $7.45 an hour today, instead of the current level of $5.15. 
The gap shows how far we have fallen short in giving low income workers 
their fair share of our extraordinary economic prosperity. Since 1968, 
the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 150 
percent--while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down 
by 30 percent.
  The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the 
leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a 
remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and 
entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an unprecedented 
expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. 
The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and 
interest rates are low.
  But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum 
wage earners. These workers can barely make ends meet. Working 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,900 below the 
poverty line for a family of three. A full day's work should mean a 
fair day's pay. But for millions of Americans who earn the minimum 
wage, it doesn't.
  According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are 
women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Minimum wage workers are 
teacher's aides and child care providers, home health care aides and 
clothing store workers. They care for vast numbers of elderly Americans 
in nursing homes. They stock shelves in the corner store. They mop the 
floors and empty the trash in thousands of office buildings in 
communities across the country.
  Three-fifths of these workers are the sole breadwinners in their 
families. More than half work full time. These families need help. They 
work hard and they should be treated with dignity. They deserve this 
increase in the minimum wage.
  Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky 
will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This 
hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In 
fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in 
the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 
40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all 
sectors of the population.
  The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 
an hour. This issue is of vital importance to working families across 
the country. In the past election, for example, by a margin of 2 to 1, 
voters in the State of Washington approved a ballot initiative to 
increase the state minimum wage to $6.50 an hour. In many other states, 
raising the minimum wage was a potent issue in the election.
  The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is 
a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above 
all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. I intend to do all I 
can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who 
works for a living should have to live in poverty.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 192

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       (a) Wage.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1999; and
       ``(B) $6.15 an hour beginning on September 1, 2000;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on September 1, 1999.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
                   THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

       The provisions of section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join a number of my colleagues in 
introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. There is no 
better way to reward work than by ensuring each and every worker be 
paid a living wage.
  During the past three decades, the purchasing power of the minimum 
wage has declined by 30 percent. Even after the modest minimum wage 
increase in 1996, a person working full-time for the minimum wage earns 
only $10,712 a year, nearly $3,000 below the poverty level for a family 
of three. That paycheck must pay for food, housing, health care, child 
care, and transportation. It is time to reward working families with 
living wages.
  The legislation we are proposing would provide a modest 50-cent per 
hour increase this year, with an additional 50-cent increase in 2000, 
bringing the wage level to $6.15 per hour.
  More than 10 million people would be helped by a raise in the minimum 
wage--an increase of more than $2,000 per year for a full-time worker. 
To put things in context, nearly three quarters of minimum wage earners 
are adults and 40 percent are the sole breadwinners for their families. 
Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and 82 percent of all 
minimum wage earners work more than 20 hours per week.
  Since the last minimum wage increase, our nation's economy has 
continued to grow steadily. In my home State of Connecticut, members of 
the State legislature saw the wisdom of increasing the minimum wage, 
and last year enacted a two-step minimum wage increase. The current 
level is now $5.65, and effective January 1, 2000, the wage will again 
increase to $6.15 an hour. Connecticut's unemployment rate is 3.8 
percent and almost 60,000 new jobs were created in the last two years. 
The State is close to recovering nearly all of the 156,000 jobs lost 
during the recession that hit in the early 1990's.
  I hope that Congress will follow Connecticut's lead and pass a 
similar law before the year is through. Congress should take a stand 
for millions of working Americans and raise the minimum wage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 193. A bill to apply the same quality and safety standards to 
domestically manufactured handguns that are currently applied to 
imported handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 american handgun standards act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 194. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the first $2,000 of health insurance premiums to be fully deductible; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                    health insurance tax relief act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 195. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently

[[Page 942]]

extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance.


                research and experimentation tax credit

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive in 
the case of multiemployer plans the section 415 limit on benefits to 
the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                    pension improvement legislation

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 197. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity 
on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of a coastal State that has 
declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or 
production activity in State water; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                     coastal states protection act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 198. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the training of health professions students with respect to the 
identification and referral of victims of domestic violence; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


       domestic violence identification and referral act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce several 
important bills that I hope the Senate will consider early in the 106th 
Congress.
  The first bill is the American Handgun Standards Act. This 
legislation would require that handguns made in the United States meet 
the same standards currently required of imported handguns. This 
legislation would halt the sale and manufacture of new ``junk guns,'' 
which have been found by criminologists to be disproportionately used 
in crimes.
  The next bill is the Health Insurance Tax Deduction. This important 
legislation would make the costs of health insurance tax deductible for 
individuals who purchase their own health coverage--up to a maximum of 
$2,000 per year. Currently health care costs are only deductible for 
corporations and the self-employed. Current law clearly discriminates 
against individuals and should be changed.
  Also included is legislation to make the Research and Experimentation 
Tax Credit permanent. Virtually all economists agree that the R&E Tax 
Credit is a valuable incentive that encourages high-tech companies to 
develop innovative products. In the past, however, the credit has been 
enacted intermittently and only for very limited periods of time. The 
on-again, off-again nature of the R&E Tax Credit makes it very 
difficult for companies to plan long-term research projects. It should 
be made permanent.
  The next bill would improve our pension system by exempting multi-
employer plans from the annual income limits of Section 415 of the 
Internal Revenue Code. Current law sets pension compensation based on 
three consecutive years of pay. However, for workers whose income 
fluctuates from year-to-year, this requirement may lower annual 
benefits. To ensure fairness for these workers, multi-employer plans 
should be exempted from Section 415.
  Next is the Coastal States Protection Act, which will provide 
necessary protection for the nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
from the adverse effects of offshore oil and gas development by making 
management of the federal OCS consistent with state-mandated protection 
of state waters. Simply put, my bill says that when a state establishes 
a drilling moratorium on part or all of its coastal waters, that 
protection would be extended to adjacent federal waters.
  The final bill is the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral 
Act, which would help ensure that medical professionals have the 
training they need to recognize and treat domestic violence, including 
spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse. The bill will amend the 
Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to give preference in awarding grants to institutions that 
train health professionals in identifying, treating, and referring 
patients who are victims of domestic violence to appropriate services.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 193

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Handgun Standards 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the importation 
     of handguns that failed to meet minimum quality and safety 
     standards;
       (2) the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not impose any quality 
     and safety standards on domestically produced handguns;
       (3) domestically produced handguns are specifically 
     exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and are not required to meet any quality and 
     safety standards;
       (4) each year--
       (A) gunshots kill more than 35,000 Americans and wound 
     approximately 250,000;
       (B) approximately 75,000 Americans are hospitalized for the 
     treatment of gunshot wounds;
       (C) Americans spend more than $20 billion for the medical 
     treatment of gunshot wounds; and
       (D) gun violence costs the United States economy a total of 
     $135 billion;
       (5) the disparate treatment of imported handguns and 
     domestically produced handguns has led to the creation of a 
     high-volume market for junk guns, defined as those handguns 
     that fail to meet the quality and safety standards required 
     of imported handguns;
       (6) traffic in junk guns constitutes a serious threat to 
     public welfare and to law enforcement officers;
       (7) junk guns are used disproportionately in the commission 
     of crimes; and
       (8) the domestic manufacture, transfer, and possession of 
     junk guns should be restricted.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF JUNK GUN.

       Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) The term `junk gun' means any handgun that does not 
     meet the standard imposed on imported handguns as described 
     in section 925(d)(3), and any regulations issued under such 
     section.''.

     SEC. 4. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION 
                   OF CERTAIN HANDGUNS.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for 
     a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a junk gun that 
     has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 
     commerce.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the possession or transfer of a junk gun otherwise 
     lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the 
     enactment of the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999;
       ``(B) a firearm or replica of a firearm that has been 
     rendered permanently inoperative;
       ``(C)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession 
     by, the United States or a State or a department or agency of 
     the United States, or a State of a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a junk gun; or
       ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     junk gun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
     duty);
       ``(D) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a junk gun for the purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
     off-duty); or
       ``(E) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a junk 
     gun by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the 
     purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the 
     Secretary.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 194

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Tax Relief 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FIRST $2,000 OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FULLY 
                   DEDUCTIBLE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 213 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical, dental, 
     etc., expenses) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--There shall be allowed as a 
     deduction the following amounts not compensated for by 
     insurance or otherwise--

[[Page 943]]

       ``(1) the amount by which the amount of expenses paid 
     during the taxable year (reduced by the amount deductible 
     under paragraph (2)) for medical care of the taxpayer, the 
     taxpayer's spouse, and the taxpayer's dependents (as defined 
     in section 152) exceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income, 
     plus
       ``(2) so much of the expenses paid during the taxable year 
     for insurance which constitutes medical care under subsection 
     (d)(1)(D) (other than for a qualified long-term care 
     insurance contract) for such taxpayer, spouse, and dependents 
     as does not exceed $2,000.''
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes 
     Deduction.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining adjusted gross income) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (17) the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Health insurance premiums.--The deduction allowed by 
     section 213(a)(2).''
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 162(l)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for 
     health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is an 
     employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shall 
     be allowed as a deduction under this section an amount equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(i) so much of the amount paid during the taxable year 
     for insurance which constitutes medical care for the 
     taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents as does not exceed 
     $2,000, plus
       ``(ii) the applicable percentage of the amount so paid in 
     excess of $2,000.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 195

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 196

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415 
                   LIMIT ON BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special limitation 
     rule for governmental plans) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and multiemployer 
     plans'' after ``governmental plans''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or a multiemployer plan (as defined in 
     section 414(f))'' after ``governmental plan (as defined in 
     section 414(d))''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 197

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal States Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.

       Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with 
     respect to land beneath navigable water (as defined in 
     section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (16 U.S.C. 1301)) of a 
     coastal State a moratorium on oil, gas, or other mineral 
     exploration, development, or production activity established 
     by statute or by order of the Governor, the Secretary shall 
     not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or 
     production of minerals on the outer Continental Shelf that is 
     seaward of or adjacent to that land.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 198

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Domestic Violence 
     Identification and Referral Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FOR CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS 
                   PROGRAMS, OF PROVISIONS REGARDING DOMESTIC 
                   VIOLENCE.

       (a) Title VII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295j) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a 
     school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental 
     health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section 
     853), a program for the training of physician assistants, or 
     a program for the training of allied health professionals.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification 
     and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report specifying the health professions entities that are 
     receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours 
     of training required by the entities for purposes of such 
     paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; and 
     the types of courses through which the training is being 
     provided.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred 
     to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman 
     battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and 
     acquaintance rape.''.
       (b) Title VIII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 806 of the Public Health Service Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or 
     other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to 
     receive an award described in such paragraph.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification 
     and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report specifying the health professions entities that are 
     receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours 
     of training required by the entities for purposes of such 
     paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; and 
     the types of courses through which the training is being 
     provided.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred 
     to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman 
     battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and 
     acquaintance rape.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 199. A bill for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, 
and their son, Vladimir Malofienko; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 944]]




                          private relief bill

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help my constituent Vova Malofienko, and his parents, to live 
a healthy and productive life in the United States.
  Tragically, Vova was a victim of the Chernobyl reactor explosion. He 
has battled Leukemia his whole life. Since his arrival in the United 
States for cancer treatment in 1992, he and his parents have sought to 
remain here because the air, food, and water in the Ukraine are still 
contaminated with radiation and are perilous to those like Vova who 
have a weakened immune system. Additionally, cancer treatment available 
in the Ukraine is not as sophisticated as medical care available in the 
United States.
  Although Vova's cancer has gone into remission because of the 
excellent health care he has received, the seven other children who 
came to the United States with Vova were not as fortunate. They 
returned to the Ukraine and they died, one by one, because of 
inadequate cancer treatment. Not one child survived.
  Because of his perilous medical condition, Vova and his family have 
done everything possible to remain in the United States. Since 1992, 
they have obtained a number of visa extensions, and I have helped them 
with their efforts. In March of 1997, the last time the Malofienkos' 
visas were expiring, I appealed to the INS and the family was given 
what I was told would be final one-year extension.
  Across the country, people have rallied in support of Vova's cause. 
The Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund, national Ukrainian and religious 
organizations, and Vova's classmates at Millburn Middle School have all 
worked to help the Malofienkos.
  During the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to help 
Vova and his family. With the help of Senators Abraham, Hatch, and 
Daschle, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. However, the House 
failed to pass it before the end of the last session.
  I hope that my Senate colleagues will help move this legislation 
forward expeditiously. We must give Vova and his family a chance to 
live their lives in peace.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 199

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir 
     Malofienko, shall be held and considered to have been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
     payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre 
     Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, 
     as provided in section 1, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate 
     number during the current fiscal year the total number of 
     immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
     aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 200. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the years for carryback of net operating losses for certain farm 
losses; to the Committee on Finance.


                    net operating losses for farmers

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation for 
myself and Senator Johnson providing farmers with the option of 
receiving a refund from taxes paid in the past 10 years for their 
current operating losses.
  I was pleased to see a net operating loss provision included in the 
Omnibus Appropriations measure allowing farmers to carry back their 
losses for 5 years. But, a five year period is insufficient given the 
economic reality in Agriculture.
  Farmers are suffering huge losses through no fault of their own. No 
other business has less control of the price they can receive for what 
they produce. Farmers cannot control the world's weather or the World 
economy. But, those factors determine the price of corn, soybeans and 
wheat. The Freedom to Farm bill passed in 1997 sharply reduced the 
farmer's safety net. Farm prices have crashed to levels not seen in 
decades. Many farmers are going to have a very difficult time being 
able to acquire the funds needed to plant their crops in the coming 
year or maintain their annual operations. Grain farmers received some 
assistance in the Omnibus Appropriations measure. But, it was not 
sufficient. Livestock producers received very limited help in that 
measure. And, in the last few months we have seen hog prices drop to 
levels that were, adjusted for inflation, far lower than anything seen 
at the worst point of the Great Depression. Many farmers could lose the 
farms that have been in their families for generations. Those low 
prices and the resulting sharp reduction in hog producers' financial 
resources is changing the whole structure of hog production. Cattle 
prices also have been significantly below the cost of production for 
over a year. And, the economic difficulty is far broader. It is already 
having a terrible ripple effect on the economies of rural areas. 
Layoffs have been occurring at agricultural equipment manufacturers and 
in stores of all kinds in small towns across the country. We are just 
at the beginning stages of what could become a very severe downturn in 
rural America.
  A number of Senators and I are proposing a series of modifications in 
agicultural programs to help alleviate these programs. But, I believe 
the Congress needs to also pass a provision broadening existing law 
allowing farmers to recover taxes paid in the past to cover their net 
operating losses for 10 years.
  I propose that the option to carry losses back for 10 years only 
apply to family farmers. That would include those with gross sales of 
less than $7 million and the losses covered would be up to $200,000 per 
year in operating losses. The benefit would only go to farmers whose 
families are actively engaged in farming and whose business activity is 
mostly farming. The amount of the rebate would be dependent on the 
amount of the loss and the tax rate paid by the farmer for the paid 
taxes that are being restored.
  The 10 year provision would only cover losses occurring in 1998 to 
1999. For losses occuring in 1998, farmers would be able to calculate 
their loss now and seek an immediate rebate from the IRS for the taxes 
paid in earlier years.
  Current law already allows a few taxpayers in certain circumstances 
to go back and recover taxes that they paid for 10 years. I believe 
that it should be broadened to cover farmers in this difficult time. In 
fact, there is a precedent in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act in which 
Amtrak was allowed to use net operating losses of their predecessor 
railroads from over 25 years in the past.
  I urge that when the Congress considers a tax bill, this provision be 
considered and passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 201. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
apply the Act to a greater percentage of the United States workforce, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


           the family and medical leave fairness act of 1999

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, six years ago, I came to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Act. That 
introduction and the signing of the bill into law a few weeks later by 
President Clinton was the culmination of an eight-year struggle to make 
job-protected leave accessible for working Americans, in times of 
family or medical emergency.
  Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the

[[Page 945]]

work we do here in Washington, the Family and Medical Leave Act stands 
in sharp contrast.
  It responded to a deep and genuine need among American Families. Over 
the last six years, I have heard from many working Americans about what 
this law has meant to them. But no story captures the impact of our 
work better than the one expectant mother I heard from who kept a copy 
of the Family and Medical Leave Act in her bedside table. She had a 
difficult pregnancy and was often on doctor-ordered bed rest; she said 
she kept the FMLA nearby and read it as reassurance that she wouldn't 
lose her job or her health insurance.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a lifeline for tens of 
millions of families as they have responded at those key moments that 
define a family--when there is a new child or when serious illness 
strikes. With the FMLA, working Americans can take 12 weeks off to cope 
with these basic family needs without worry that they will lose their 
jobs or their health insurance.
  Yet, even with the success of the FMLA there is still more work to be 
done.
  Millions of Americans are not covered by the Family and Medical Leave 
Act and continue to face painful choices involving their competing 
responsibilities to family and work.
  In fact, over one-quarter of working Americans needed to take family 
and medical leave in 1998 but were unable to do so. Forty-four percent 
of these Americans did not take the leave they needed because they 
would have lost their jobs or their employers do not allow it.
  Today, forty-three percent of private sector employees remain 
unprotected by the FMLA because their employer does not meet the 
current 50 or more employee threshold.
  The legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave 
Fairness Act of 1999--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to 
millions of Americans who remain uncovered. I am pleased to be joined 
in this effort by Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Murray, Mikulski, Harkin, 
Kerry, Akaka, and Boxer.
  This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies 
with 25 or more workers.
  This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with 
protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total 
percentage of the private sector workforce covered by the FMLA to 71 
percent.
  In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of 
family and medical emergency that workers in larger companies receive 
from the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  With this legislation they will receive it.
  Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the 
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I strongly urge them to 
examine the bipartisan Commission of Leave report and other studies 
that documents the positive impact of this legislation.
  When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation 
established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers 
and businesses.
  The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned two and a 
half years. It included independent research and field hearings across 
the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from individuals 
and the business community.
  The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act 
is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the 
same time not placing any undue burden on employers.
  According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical 
Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross-
section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving 
needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.''
  Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities 
to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer 
leaves for a greater number of reasons.
  In fact, according to the bipartisan Commission--12 million workers 
took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical 
Leave Act during the 18 months of its study.
  Not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is 
working for American business as well.
  The conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the 
concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in 
Congress.
  The vast majority of businesses--over 94%--report little to no 
additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More 
than 92% reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96% 
reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83% of 
employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In 
fact, 12.6% actually reported a positive effect on employee 
productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as 
reported a negative effect.
  And not only did employers report that compliance with the FMLA was 
relatively easy and of minimal cost, but work sites with a small number 
of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even 
smaller costs than large work sites.
  Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation 
that we can put aside our political differences and build on the 
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  Last November, the American people gave us mandate--a mandate for 
good governance. The Family and Medical Leave Act represents the 
fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me 
in supporting this critically important legislation for America's 
working families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 201

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave 
     Fairness Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.) has provided employees with a significant new 
     tool in balancing the needs of their families with the 
     demands of work;
       (2) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has had a 
     minimal impact on business, and over 90 percent of private 
     employers covered by the Act experienced little or no cost 
     and a minimal, or positive, impact on productivity as a 
     result of the Act;
       (3) although both employers at workplaces with large 
     numbers of employees and employers at workplaces with small 
     numbers of employees reported that compliance with the Family 
     and Medical Leave Act of 1993 involved very easy 
     administration and low costs, the smaller employers found it 
     easier and less expensive to comply with the Act than the 
     larger employers;
       (4) over three-quarters of worksites with under 50 
     employees covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
     report no cost increases or small cost increases associated 
     with compliance with the Act;
       (5) in 1998, 27 percent of Americans needed to take family 
     or medical leave but were unable to do so, and 44 percent of 
     these employees did not take such leave because they would 
     have lost their jobs or their employers did not allow it;
       (6) only 57 percent of the private workforce is currently 
     protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; and
       (7) 13,000,000 more private employees, or an additional 14 
     percent of the private workforce, would be protected by the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 if the Act was expanded 
     to cover private employers with 25 or more employees.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES.

       Paragraphs (2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i) of section 101 of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2611(2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i)) are amended by striking ``50'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``25''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 202. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act and 
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access 
to health insurance and Medicare benefits for individuals ages 55 to 
65, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 946]]




                 THE MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to provide 
access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65. 
These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to 
qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early 
retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing.
  The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three-
part initiative announced last January. The bill is a targeted proposal 
to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance 
coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives, 
but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as 
they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is 
increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage 
between years when persons are in the labor force and the age (65) when 
they become eligible for Medicare.
  The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and 
64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) It provides 
displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar 
Medicare buy-in option; and (3) It extends COBRA coverage to persons 55 
and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits.
  The program is largely self-financing and is substantially paid for 
by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. There is a modest cost 
to the buy-in proposal for 62-65-year-olds because participants would 
pay the premium in two parts: most of the cost would be paid by the 
individual up front and a smaller amount would be paid after they turn 
65 years-old. Medicare would in effect ``loan'' participants the second 
part of the premium until they reach 65, when they would make small 
monthly payments in addition to their regular Medicare Part B premium. 
The financing of the program is carefully walled off from the Medicare 
Part A and Part B Trust Funds, to ensure that it will not adversely 
impact the existing program.
  In 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of this bill 
found no impact on the Medicare Part A or Part B Trust Funds. CBO also 
predicted that about 410,000 individuals would participate (or 33 
percent more than first estimated by the Administration). Finally, CBO 
estimated that the post-65 premium that people ages 62-65 would pay 
would be only $10 per month per year--$6 per month, or $72 less per 
year, than the Administration estimated.
  Mr. President, the problem of health insurance for the near elderly 
is getting worse. Congress should act now to provide valuable coverage 
for these individuals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 202

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare 
     Early Access Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF 
                                  AGE

       Sec. 101. Access to medicare benefits for individuals 62-
           to-65 years of age.

 ``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
                           to-65 Years of Age

         ``Sec. 1859. Program benefits; eligibility.
         ``Sec. 1859A. Enrollment process; coverage.
         ``Sec. 1859B. Premiums.
         ``Sec. 1859C. Payment of premiums.
         ``Sec. 1859D. Medicare Early Access Trust Fund.
         ``Sec. 1859E. Oversight and accountability.
         ``Sec. 1859F. Administration and miscellaneous.''.

 TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62 
                              YEARS OF AGE

       Sec. 201. Access to medicare benefits for displaced workers 
           55-to-62 years of age.

             TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

 Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
                                of 1974

       Sec. 301. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

        Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

       Sec. 311. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

      Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

       Sec. 321. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF 
                                  AGE

     SEC. 101. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-
                   65 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) In General.--Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1859 and part D as section 
     1858 and part E, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after such section the following new part:

 ``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
                           to-65 Years of Age

     ``SEC. 1859. PROGRAM BENEFITS; ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Entitlement to Medicare Benefits for Enrolled 
     Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual enrolled under this part 
     is entitled to the same benefits under this title as an 
     individual entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled 
     under part B.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this part:
       ``(A) Federal or state cobra continuation provision.--The 
     term `Federal or State COBRA continuation provision' has the 
     meaning given the term `COBRA continuation provision' in 
     section 2791(d)(4) of the Public Health Service Act and 
     includes a comparable State program, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Federal health insurance program defined.--The term 
     `Federal health insurance program' means any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Medicare.--Part A or part B of this title (other than 
     by reason of this part).
       ``(ii) Medicaid.--A State plan under title XIX.
       ``(iii) FEHBP.--The Federal employees health benefit 
     program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(iv) TRICARE.--The TRICARE program (as defined in section 
     1072(7) of title 10, United States Code).
       ``(v) Active duty military.--Health benefits under title 
     10, United States Code, to an individual as a member of the 
     uniformed services of the United States.
       ``(C) Group health plan.--The term `group health plan' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 2791(a)(1) of the 
     Public Health Service Act.
       ``(b) Eligibility of Individuals Age 62-to-65 Years of 
     Age.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual 
     who meets the following requirements with respect to a month 
     is eligible to enroll under this part with respect to such 
     month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has attained 62 years of age, but has not attained 65 years 
     of age.
       ``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual 
     would be eligible for benefits under part A or part B for the 
     month if the individual were 65 years of age.
       ``(C) Not eligible for coverage under group health plans or 
     federal health insurance programs.--The individual is not 
     eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health 
     insurance program (as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B)) or 
     under a group health plan (other than such eligibility merely 
     through a Federal or State COBRA continuation provision) as 
     of the last day of the month involved.
       ``(2) Limitation on eligibility if terminated enrollment.--
     If an individual described in paragraph (1) enrolls under 
     this part and coverage of the individual is terminated under 
     section 1859A(d) (other than because of age), the individual 
     is not again eligible to enroll under this subsection unless 
     the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) New coverage under group health plan or federal 
     health insurance program.--After the date of termination of 
     coverage under such section, the individual obtains coverage 
     under a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance 
     program.
       ``(B) Subsequent loss of new coverage.--The individual 
     subsequently loses eligibility for the coverage described in 
     subparagraph (A) and exhausts any eligibility the individual 
     may subsequently have for coverage under a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision.
       ``(3) Change in health plan eligibility does not affect 
     coverage.--In the case of an individual who is eligible for 
     and enrolls under this part under this subsection, the 
     individual's continued entitlement to benefits under this 
     part shall not be affected by the individual's subsequent 
     eligibility for benefits or coverage described in paragraph 
     (1)(C), or entitlement to such benefits or coverage.

     ``SEC. 1859A. ENROLLMENT PROCESS; COVERAGE.

       ``(a) In General.--An individual may enroll in the program 
     established under this

[[Page 947]]

     part only in such manner and form as may be prescribed by 
     regulations, and only during an enrollment period prescribed 
     by the Secretary consistent with the provisions of this 
     section. Such regulations shall provide a process under 
     which--
       ``(1) individuals eligible to enroll as of a month are 
     permitted to pre-enroll during a prior month within an 
     enrollment period described in subsection (b); and
       ``(2) each individual seeking to enroll under section 
     1859(b) is notified, before enrolling, of the deferred 
     monthly premium amount the individual will be liable for 
     under section 1859C(b) upon attaining 65 years of age as 
     determined under section 1859B(c)(3).
       ``(b) Enrollment Periods.--
       ``(1) Individuals 62-to-65 years of age.--In the case of 
     individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section 
     1859(b)--
       ``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is 
     eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000, the 
     enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall end 
     on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1, 2000, 
     is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of 
     eligibility for July 2000.
       ``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to 
     enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the 
     enrollment period shall begin on the first day of the second 
     month before the month in which the individual first is 
     eligible to so enroll and shall end 4 months later. Any such 
     enrollment before the first day of the third month of such 
     enrollment period is conditioned upon compliance with the 
     conditions of eligibility for such third month.
       ``(2) Authority to correct for government errors.--The 
     provisions of section 1837(h) apply with respect to 
     enrollment under this part in the same manner as they apply 
     to enrollment under part B.
       ``(c) Date Coverage Begins.--
       ``(1) In general.--The period during which an individual is 
     entitled to benefits under this part shall begin as follows, 
     but in no case earlier than July 1, 2000:
       ``(A) In the case of an individual who enrolls (including 
     pre-enrolls) before the month in which the individual 
     satisfies eligibility for enrollment under section 1859, the 
     first day of such month of eligibility.
       ``(B) In the case of an individual who enrolls during or 
     after the month in which the individual first satisfies 
     eligibility for enrollment under such section, the first day 
     of the following month.
       ``(2) Authority to provide for partial months of 
     coverage.--Under regulations, the Secretary may, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, provide for coverage periods that 
     include portions of a month in order to avoid lapses of 
     coverage.
       ``(3) Limitation on payments.--No payments may be made 
     under this title with respect to the expenses of an 
     individual enrolled under this part unless such expenses were 
     incurred by such individual during a period which, with 
     respect to the individual, is a coverage period under this 
     section.
       ``(d) Termination of Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual's coverage period under 
     this part shall continue until the individual's enrollment 
     has been terminated at the earliest of the following:
       ``(A) General provisions.--
       ``(i) Notice.--The individual files notice (in a form and 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary) that the individual no 
     longer wishes to participate in the insurance program under 
     this part.
       ``(ii) Nonpayment of premiums.--The individual fails to 
     make payment of premiums required for enrollment under this 
     part.
       ``(iii) Medicare eligibility.--The individual becomes 
     entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled under part B 
     (other than by reason of this part).
       ``(B) Termination based on age.--The individual attains 65 
     years of age.
       ``(2) Effective date of termination.--
       ``(A) Notice.--The termination of a coverage period under 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall take effect at the close of the 
     month following for which the notice is filed.
       ``(B) Nonpayment of premium.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall take effect on a date 
     determined under regulations, which may be determined so as 
     to provide a grace period in which overdue premiums may be 
     paid and coverage continued. The grace period determined 
     under the preceding sentence shall not exceed 60 days; except 
     that it may be extended for an additional 30 days in any case 
     where the Secretary determines that there was good cause for 
     failure to pay the overdue premiums within such 60-day 
     period.
       ``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--The termination of a 
     coverage period under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B) shall 
     take effect as of the first day of the month in which the 
     individual attains 65 years of age or becomes entitled to 
     benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits under part B 
     (other than by reason of this part).

     ``SEC. 1859B. PREMIUMS.

       ``(a) Amount of Monthly Premiums.--
       ``(1) Base monthly premiums.--The Secretary shall, during 
     September of each year (beginning with 1999), determine the 
     following premium rates which shall apply with respect to 
     coverage provided under this title for any month in the 
     succeeding year:
       ``(A) Base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of age 
     or older.--A base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of 
     age or older is equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium 
     rate computed under subsection (b) for each premium area.
       ``(B) Deferred monthly premiums for individuals 62 years of 
     age or older.--The Secretary shall, during September of each 
     year (beginning with 1999), determine under subsection (c) 
     the amount of deferred monthly premiums that shall apply with 
     respect to individuals who first obtain coverage under this 
     part under section 1859(b) in the succeeding year.
       ``(3) Establishment of premium areas.--For purposes of this 
     part, the term `premium area' means such an area as the 
     Secretary shall specify to carry out this part. The Secretary 
     from time to time may change the boundaries of such premium 
     areas. The Secretary shall seek to minimize the number of 
     such areas specified under this paragraph.
       ``(b) Base Annual Premium for Individuals 62 Years of Age 
     or Older.--
       ``(1) National, per capita average.--The Secretary shall 
     estimate the average, annual per capita amount that would be 
     payable under this title with respect to individuals residing 
     in the United States who meet the requirement of section 
     1859(b)(1)(A) as if all such individuals were eligible for 
     (and enrolled) under this title during the entire year (and 
     assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did not apply).
       ``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall reduce, 
     as determined appropriate, the amount determined under 
     paragraph (1) for a premium area (specified under subsection 
     (a)(3)) that has costs below the national average, in order 
     to assure participation in all areas throughout the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under 
     this subsection for months in a year for individuals 62 years 
     of age or older residing in a premium area is equal to the 
     average, annual per capita amount estimated under paragraph 
     (1) for the year, adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Deferred Premium Rate for Individuals 62 Years of Age 
     or Older.--The deferred premium rate for individuals with a 
     group of individuals who obtain coverage under section 
     1859(b) in a year shall be computed by the Secretary as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Estimation of national, per capita annual average 
     expenditures for enrollment group.--The Secretary shall 
     estimate the average, per capita annual amount that will be 
     paid under this part for individuals in such group during the 
     period of enrollment under section 1859(b). In making such 
     estimate for coverage beginning in a year before 2004, the 
     Secretary may base such estimate on the average, per capita 
     amount that would be payable if the program had been in 
     operation over a previous period of at least 4 years.
       ``(2) Difference between estimated expenditures and 
     estimated premiums.--Based on the characteristics of 
     individuals in such group, the Secretary shall estimate 
     during the period of coverage of the group under this part 
     under section 1859(b) the amount by which--
       ``(A) the amount estimated under paragraph (1); exceeds
       ``(B) the average, annual per capita amount of premiums 
     that will be payable for months during the year under section 
     1859C(a) for individuals in such group (including premiums 
     that would be payable if there were no terminations in 
     enrollment under clause (i) or (ii) of section 
     1859A(d)(1)(A)).
       ``(3) Actuarial computation of deferred monthly premium 
     rates.--The Secretary shall determine deferred monthly 
     premium rates for individuals in such group in a manner so 
     that--
       ``(A) the estimated actuarial value of such premiums 
     payable under section 1859C(b), is equal to
       ``(B) the estimated actuarial present value of the 
     differences described in paragraph (2).

     Such rate shall be computed for each individual in the group 
     in a manner so that the rate is based on the number of months 
     between the first month of coverage based on enrollment under 
     section 1859(b) and the month in which the individual attains 
     65 years of age.
       ``(4) Determinants of actuarial present values.--The 
     actuarial present values described in paragraph (3) shall 
     reflect--
       ``(A) the estimated probabilities of survival at ages 62 
     through 84 for individuals enrolled during the year; and
       ``(B) the estimated effective average interest rates that 
     would be earned on investments held in the trust funds under 
     this title during the period in question.

     ``SEC. 1859C. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.

       ``(a) Payment of Base Monthly Premium.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for payment 
     and collection of the base monthly premium, determined under 
     section 1859B(a)(1) for the age (and age cohort, if 
     applicable) of the individual involved and the premium area 
     in which the individual principally resides, in the same 
     manner as for payment of monthly premiums under section

[[Page 948]]

     1840, except that, for purposes of applying this section, any 
     reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the 
     Trust Fund established under section 1859D.
       ``(2) Period of payment.--In the case of an individual who 
     participates in the program established by this title, the 
     base monthly premium shall be payable for the period 
     commencing with the first month of the individual's coverage 
     period and ending with the month in which the individual's 
     coverage under this title terminates.
       ``(b) Payment of Deferred Premium for Individuals Covered 
     After Attaining Age 62.--
       ``(1) Rate of payment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is 
     covered under this part for a month pursuant to an enrollment 
     under section 1859(b), subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     individual is liable for payment of a deferred premium in 
     each month during the period described in paragraph (2) in an 
     amount equal to the full deferred monthly premium rate 
     determined for the individual under section 1859B(c).
       ``(B) Special rules for those who disenroll early.--
       ``(i) In general.--If such an individual's enrollment under 
     such section is terminated under clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 1859A(d)(1)(A), subject to clause (ii), the amount of 
     the deferred premium otherwise established under this 
     paragraph shall be pro-rated to reflect the number of months 
     of coverage under this part under such enrollment compared to 
     the maximum number of months of coverage that the individual 
     would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
       ``(ii) Rounding to 12-month minimum coverage periods.--In 
     applying clause (i), the number of months of coverage (if not 
     a multiple of 12) shall be rounded to the next highest 
     multiple of 12 months, except that in no case shall this 
     clause result in a number of months of coverage exceeding the 
     maximum number of months of coverage that the individual 
     would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
       ``(2) Period of payment.--The period described in this 
     paragraph for an individual is the period beginning with the 
     first month in which the individual has attained 65 years of 
     age and ending with the month before the month in which the 
     individual attains 85 years of age.
       ``(3) Collection.--In the case of an individual who is 
     liable for a premium under this subsection, the amount of the 
     premium shall be collected in the same manner as the premium 
     for enrollment under such part is collected under section 
     1840, except that any reference in such section to the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed 
     to be a reference to the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund 
     established under section 1859D.
       ``(c) Application of Certain Provisions.--The provisions of 
     section 1840 (other than subsection (h)) shall apply to 
     premiums collected under this section in the same manner as 
     they apply to premiums collected under part B, except that 
     any reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the 
     Trust Fund established under section 1859D.

     ``SEC. 1859D. MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby created on the books of 
     the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as 
     the `Medicare Early Access Trust Fund' (in this section 
     referred to as the `Trust Fund'). The Trust Fund shall 
     consist of such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided 
     in section 201(i)(1) and such amounts as may be deposited in, 
     or appropriated to, such fund as provided in this title.
       ``(2) Premiums.--Premiums collected under section 1859B 
     shall be transferred to the Trust Fund.
       ``(b) Incorporation of Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections 
     (b) through (i) of section 1841 shall apply with respect to 
     the Trust Fund and this title in the same manner as they 
     apply with respect to the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund and part B, respectively.
       ``(2) Miscellaneous references.--In applying provisions of 
     section 1841 under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) any reference in such section to `this part' is 
     construed to refer to this part D;
       ``(B) any reference in section 1841(h) to section 1840(d) 
     and in section 1841(i) to sections 1840(b)(1) and 1842(g) are 
     deemed references to comparable authority exercised under 
     this part; and
       ``(C) payments may be made under section 1841(g) to the 
     trust funds under sections 1817 and 1841 as reimbursement to 
     such funds for payments they made for benefits provided under 
     this part.

     ``SEC. 1859E. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Through Annual Reports of Trustees.--The Board of 
     Trustees of the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund under 
     section 1859D(b)(1) shall report on an annual basis to 
     Congress concerning the status of the Trust Fund and the need 
     for adjustments in the program under this part to maintain 
     financial solvency of the program under this part.
       ``(b) Periodic GAO Reports.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall periodically submit to Congress reports 
     on the adequacy of the financing of coverage provided under 
     this part. The Comptroller General shall include in such 
     report such recommendations for adjustments in such financing 
     and coverage as the Comptroller General deems appropriate in 
     order to maintain financial solvency of the program under 
     this part.

     ``SEC. 1859F. ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS.

       ``(a) Treatment for Purposes of this Title.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this part--
       ``(1) an individual enrolled under this part shall be 
     treated for purposes of this title as though the individual 
     was entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part 
     B; and
       ``(2) benefits described in section 1859 shall be payable 
     under this title to such an individual in the same manner as 
     if such individual was so entitled and enrolled.
       ``(b) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of 
     Medicaid Program.--For purposes of applying title XIX 
     (including the provision of medicare cost-sharing assistance 
     under such title), an individual who is enrolled under this 
     part shall not be treated as being entitled to benefits under 
     this title.
       ``(c) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of COBRA 
     Continuation Provisions.--In applying a COBRA continuation 
     provision (as defined in section 2791(d)(4) of the Public 
     Health Service Act), any reference to an entitlement to 
     benefits under this title shall not be construed to include 
     entitlement to benefits under this title pursuant to the 
     operation of this part.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to Social Security Act 
     Provisions.--
       (1) Section 201(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``or the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund'' and inserting 
     ``the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and 
     the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund''.
       (2) Section 201(g)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund established by 
     title XVIII'' and inserting ``, the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and the Medicare Early Access 
     Trust Fund established by title XVIII''.
       (3) Section 1820(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``part D'' and inserting ``part E''.
       (4) Part C of title XVIII of such Act is amended--
       (A) in section 1851(a)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(B)), 
     by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
       (B) in section 1851(a)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)), 
     by striking ``1859(b)(2)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(2)'';
       (C) in section 1852(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)), by 
     striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
       (D) in section 1852(a)(3)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     22(a)(3)(B)(ii)), by striking ``1859(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``1858(b)(2)(B)'';
       (E) in section 1853(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(1)(A)), 
     by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''; and
       (F) in section 1853(a)(3)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(3)(D)), 
     by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''.
       (5) Section 1853(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (7)'' and inserting 
     ``, (7), or (8)'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Adjustment for early access.--In applying this 
     subsection with respect to individuals entitled to benefits 
     under part D, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate 
     adjustment in the Medicare+Choice capitation rate as may be 
     appropriate to reflect differences between the population 
     served under such part and the population under parts A and 
     B.''.
       (c) Other Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 138(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``1858(b)(3)''.
       (2)(A) Section 602(2)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(not including an individual who is so entitled 
     pursuant to enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social 
     Security Act''.
       (B) Section 2202(2)(D)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``(not 
     including an individual who is so entitled pursuant to 
     enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security 
     Act''.
       (C) Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(not including an 
     individual who is so entitled pursuant to enrollment under 
     section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security Act''.

 TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62 
                              YEARS OF AGE

     SEC. 201. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 
                   55-TO-62 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 1859 of the Social Security Act, 
     as inserted by section 101(a)(2), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:

[[Page 949]]

       ``(c) Displaced Workers and Spouses.--
       ``(1) Displaced workers.--Subject to paragraph (3), an 
     individual who meets the following requirements with respect 
     to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with respect 
     to such month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has attained 55 years of age, but has not attained 62 years 
     of age.
       ``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual 
     would be eligible for benefits under part A or B for the 
     month if the individual were 65 years of age.
       ``(C) Loss of employment-based coverage.--
       ``(i) Eligible for unemployment compensation.--The 
     individual meets the requirements relating to period of 
     covered employment and conditions of separation from 
     employment to be eligible for unemployment compensation (as 
     defined in section 85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), based on a separation from employment occurring on or 
     after January 1, 1999. The previous sentence shall not be 
     construed as requiring the individual to be receiving such 
     unemployment compensation.
       ``(ii) Loss of employment-based coverage.--Immediately 
     before the time of such separation of employment, the 
     individual was covered under a group health plan on the basis 
     of such employment, and, because of such loss, is no longer 
     eligible for coverage under such plan (including such 
     eligibility based on the application of a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision) as of the last day of the month 
     involved.
       ``(iii) Previous creditable coverage for at least 1 year.--
     As of the date on which the individual loses coverage 
     described in clause (ii), the aggregate of the periods of 
     creditable coverage (as determined under section 2701(c) of 
     the Public Health Service Act) is 12 months or longer.
       ``(D) Exhaustion of available cobra continuation 
     benefits.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an individual described 
     in clause (ii) for a month described in clause (iii)--

       ``(I) the individual (or spouse) elected coverage described 
     in clause (ii); and
       ``(II) the individual (or spouse) has continued such 
     coverage for all months described in clause (iii) in which 
     the individual (or spouse) is eligible for such coverage.

       ``(ii) Individuals to whom cobra continuation coverage made 
     available.--An individual described in this clause is an 
     individual--

       ``(I) who was offered coverage under a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision at the time of loss of coverage 
     eligibility described in subparagraph (C)(ii); or
       ``(II) whose spouse was offered such coverage in a manner 
     that permitted coverage of the individual at such time.

       ``(iii) Months of possible cobra continuation coverage.--A 
     month described in this clause is a month for which an 
     individual described in clause (ii) could have had coverage 
     described in such clause as of the last day of the month if 
     the individual (or the spouse of the individual, as the case 
     may be) had elected such coverage on a timely basis.
       ``(E) Not eligible for coverage under federal health 
     insurance program or group health plans.--The individual is 
     not eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health 
     insurance program or under a group health plan (whether on 
     the basis of the individual's employment or employment of the 
     individual's spouse) as of the last day of the month 
     involved.
       ``(2) Spouse of displaced worker.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), an individual who meets the following requirements with 
     respect to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with 
     respect to such month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has not attained 62 years of age.
       ``(B) Married to displaced worker.--The individual is the 
     spouse of an individual at the time the individual enrolls 
     under this part under paragraph (1) and loses coverage 
     described in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) because the individual's 
     spouse lost such coverage.
       ``(C) Medicare eligibility (but for age); exhaustion of any 
     cobra continuation coverage; and not eligible for coverage 
     under federal health insurance program or group health 
     plan.--The individual meets the requirements of subparagraphs 
     (B), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Change in health plan eligibility affects continued 
     eligibility.--For provision that terminates enrollment under 
     this section in the case of an individual who becomes 
     eligible for coverage under a group health plan or under a 
     Federal health insurance program, see section 1859A(d)(1)(C).
       ``(4) Reenrollment permitted.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as preventing an individual who, after 
     enrolling under this subsection, terminates such enrollment 
     from subsequently reenrolling under this subsection if the 
     individual is eligible to enroll under this subsection at 
     that time.''.
       (b) Enrollment.--Section 1859A of such Act, as so inserted, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) individuals whose coverage under this part would 
     terminate because of subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii) are provided 
     notice and an opportunity to continue enrollment in 
     accordance with section 1859E(c)(1).'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, (1) the following:
       ``(2) Displaced workers and spouses.--In the case of 
     individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section 
     1859(c), the following rules apply:
       ``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is 
     first eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000, 
     the enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall 
     end on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1, 
     2000, is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of 
     eligibility for July 2000.
       ``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to 
     enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the 
     enrollment period based on such eligibility shall begin on 
     the first day of the second month before the month in which 
     the individual first is eligible to so enroll (or reenroll) 
     and shall end 4 months later.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by amending subparagraph (B) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Termination based on age.--
       ``(i) At age 65.--Subject to clause (ii), the individual 
     attains 65 years of age.
       ``(ii) At age 62 for displaced workers and spouses.--In the 
     case of an individual enrolled under this part pursuant to 
     section 1859(c), subject to subsection (a)(1), the individual 
     attains 62 years of age.'';
       (4) in subsection (d)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Obtaining access to employment-based coverage or 
     federal health insurance program for individuals under 62 
     years of age.--In the case of an individual who has not 
     attained 62 years of age, the individual is covered (or 
     eligible for coverage) as a participant or beneficiary under 
     a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance 
     program.'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(2), by amending subparagraph (C) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--The termination of a coverage period 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B)(i) shall take effect as 
     of the first day of the month in which the individual attains 
     65 years of age or becomes entitled to benefits under part A 
     or enrolled for benefits under part B.
       ``(ii) Displaced workers.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall take effect as of the 
     first day of the month in which the individual attains 62 
     years of age, unless the individual has enrolled under this 
     part pursuant to section 1859(b) and section 1859E(c)(1).''; 
     and
       (6) in subsection (d)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Access to coverage.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(C) shall take effect on the date 
     on which the individual is eligible to begin a period of 
     creditable coverage (as defined in section 2701(c) of the 
     Public Health Service Act) under a group health plan or under 
     a Federal health insurance program.''.
       (c) Premiums.--Section 1859B of such Act, as so inserted, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(B) Base monthly premium for individuals under 62 years 
     of age.--A base monthly premium for individuals under 62 
     years of age, equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium rate 
     computed under subsection (d)(3) for each premium area and 
     age cohort.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Base Monthly Premium for Individuals Under 62 Years 
     of Age.--
       ``(1) National, per capita average for age groups.--
       ``(A) Estimate of amount.--The Secretary shall estimate the 
     average, annual per capita amount that would be payable under 
     this title with respect to individuals residing in the United 
     States who meet the requirement of section 1859(c)(1)(A) 
     within each of the age cohorts established under subparagraph 
     (B) as if all such individuals within such cohort were 
     eligible for (and enrolled) under this title during the 
     entire year (and assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did 
     not apply).
       ``(B) Age cohorts.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall establish separate age cohorts in 5-year age 
     increments for individuals who have not attained 60 years of 
     age and a separate cohort for individuals who have attained 
     60 years of age.
       ``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust 
     the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) for each premium 
     area (specified under subsection (a)(3)) in the same manner 
     and to the same extent as the Secretary provides for 
     adjustments under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under 
     this subsection for months in a year for individuals in an 
     age cohort under paragraph (1)(B) in a premium area is equal 
     to 165 percent of the average, annual per capita amount 
     estimated under paragraph (1) for the age cohort and year, 
     adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Pro-ration of premiums to reflect coverage during a 
     part of a month.--If the Secretary provides for coverage of 
     portions

[[Page 950]]

     of a month under section 1859A(c)(2), the Secretary shall 
     pro-rate the premiums attributable to such coverage under 
     this section to reflect the portion of the month so 
     covered.''.
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--Section 1859F of such Act, 
     as so inserted, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Additional Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Process for continued enrollment of displaced workers 
     who attain 62 years of age.--The Secretary shall provide a 
     process for the continuation of enrollment of individuals 
     whose enrollment under section 1859(c) would be terminated 
     upon attaining 62 years of age. Under such process such 
     individuals shall be provided appropriate and timely notice 
     before the date of such termination and of the requirement to 
     enroll under this part pursuant to section 1859(b) in order 
     to continue entitlement to benefits under this title after 
     attaining 62 years of age.
       ``(2) Arrangements with states for determinations relating 
     to unemployment compensation eligibility.--The Secretary may 
     provide for appropriate arrangements with States for the 
     determination of whether individuals in the State meet or 
     would meet the requirements of section 1859(c)(1)(C)(i).''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment to Heading to Part.--The heading 
     of part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as so 
     inserted, is amended by striking ``62'' and inserting ``55''.

             TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

 Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
                                of 1974

     SEC. 301. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 603 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1163) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in section 607(7)) of group health plan coverage 
     as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a 
     covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 607 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1167) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a 
     qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), a covered employee who, at the time of the 
     event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(7) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary and with respect to a qualified beneficiary, a 
     reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under 
     the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an 
     increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and 
     coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of 
     commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the 
     retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 
     1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total 
     average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of 
     such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to 
     permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of section 602(3).
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 602(2)(A) 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or 603(7)'' after 
     ``603(6)'';
       (2) in clause (iv), by striking ``or 603(6)'' and inserting 
     ``, 603(6), or 603(7)'';
       (3) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vi);
       (4) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv) and by 
     moving such clause to immediately follow clause (iii); and
       (5) by inserting after such clause (iv) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in section 607(3)(D) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(I) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(II) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.

       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 602(1) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in section 603(7), in applying the first sentence 
     of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary) 
     continued under the group health plan (or, if none, under the 
     most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan sponsor) 
     shall be treated as the coverage described in such sentence, 
     or (at the option of the plan and qualified beneficiary) such 
     other coverage option as may be offered and elected by the 
     qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 602(3) 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(3)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an 
     individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a 
     qualifying event described in section 603(7), any reference 
     in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the 
     applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of 
     the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 606(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1166) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (6)'' and 
     inserting ``(6), or (7)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying 
     event described in section 603(7) shall be provided at least 
     90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a 
     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.

        Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

     SEC. 311. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2203 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-3) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in section 2208(6)) of group health plan coverage 
     as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a 
     covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 2208 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300bb-8) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a 
     qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), a covered employee who, at the time of the 
     event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified 
     beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of 
     benefits

[[Page 951]]

     under the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, 
     an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and 
     coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of 
     commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the 
     retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 
     1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total 
     average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of 
     such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to 
     permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of section 2202(3).
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 
     2202(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in section 2208(3)(C) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(I) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(II) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.

       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 2202(1) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in section 2203(6), in applying the first sentence 
     of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of 
     Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none, 
     under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan 
     sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such 
     sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified 
     beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and 
     elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 2202(3) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(3)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an 
     individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a 
     qualifying event described in section 2203(6), any reference 
     in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the 
     applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of 
     the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 2206(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-
     6(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (4)'' and 
     inserting ``(4), or (6)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying 
     event described in section 2203(6) shall be provided at least 
     90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a 
     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.

      Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

     SEC. 321. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4980B(f)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (F) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in subsection (g)(6)) of group health plan 
     coverage as a result of plan changes or termination in the 
     case of a covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 4980B(g) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(G), the term `qualified beneficiary' means 
     a qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(G), a covered employee who, at the time of 
     the event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified 
     beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of 
     benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of 
     benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, 
     and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date 
     of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of 
     the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 
     6, 1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the 
     total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan 
     as of such date (taking into account an appropriate 
     adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of subsection (f)(2)(C).''.
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 
     4980B(f)(2)(B)(i) of such Code is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by inserting ``or (3)(G)'' after 
     ``(3)(F)'';
       (2) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or (3)(F)'' and 
     inserting ``, (3)(F), or (3)(G)'';
       (3) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI);
       (4) by redesignating subclause (V) as subclause (IV) and by 
     moving such clause to immediately follow subclause (III); and
       (5) by inserting after such subclause (IV) the following 
     new subclause:

       ``(V) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     paragraph (3)(G), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in subsection (g)(1)(E) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(a) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(b) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.
       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(A) 
     of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in paragraph (3)(G), in applying the first sentence 
     of clause (i) and the fourth sentence of subparagraph (C), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of 
     Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none, 
     under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan 
     sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such 
     sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified 
     beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and 
     elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 
     4980B(f)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``In the case of an individual 
     provided continuation coverage by reason of a qualifying 
     event described in paragraph (3)(G), any reference in clause 
     (i) of this subparagraph to `102 percent of the applicable 
     premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of the 
     applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in subparagraph (A)(ii)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 4980B(f)(6) of such Code is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), or (G)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``The notice under subparagraph (D)(i) in the case of a 
     qualifying event described in paragraph (3)(G) shall be 
     provided at least 90 days before the date of the qualifying 
     event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a

[[Page 952]]

     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.
                                  ____


                            Summary of Bill


TITLE I. Access to Medicare Benefits for Individuals 62-to-65 Years of 
                                  Age

       The centerpiece of this initiative is the Medicare buy-in 
     for people ages 62 to 65.
       Eligibility: Persons ages 62 to 65 who do not have access 
     to employer sponsored or federal health insurance may 
     participate.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay two separate 
     premiums--one before age 65 and one between age 65 and 85.
       Base premium: The base premium would be paid monthly 
     between enrollment and when the participant turns age 65. It 
     is the part of the full premium that represents what Medicare 
     would pay on average for all people in this age group. The 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this would 
     be about $300 per month. It would be adjusted for geographic 
     variation, but the maximum premium would be limited to ensure 
     participation in all areas of the country.
       Deferred premium: The deferred premium would be paid 
     monthly beginning at age 65 until the beneficiary turns age 
     85. It is the part of the premium that covers the extra costs 
     for participants who are sicker than average. Participants 
     will be told before they enroll what their deferred premium 
     will be. CBO estimates that this would be about $10 per month 
     per year of participation.
       This two-part payment plan acts like a mortgage: it makes 
     the up-front premium affordable but requires participants to 
     pay back the Medicare ``loan'' with interest. It also ensures 
     that in the long-run, this buy-in is self-financing.
       Enrollment: Eligible persons can enroll within two months 
     of either turning 62 or losing access to employer-based or 
     federal insurance.
       Applicability of Medicare Rules: Services covered and cost 
     sharing would be, for paying participants, the same as those 
     of Medicare beneficiaries. Participants would have the choice 
     of fee-for-service or managed care. No Medicaid assistance 
     would be offered to participants for premiums or cost 
     sharing. Medigap policy protections would apply, but the open 
     enrollment provision remains at age 65.
       Disenrollment: Persons could stop buying into Medicare at 
     any time. People who disenroll would pay the deferred premium 
     as though they had been enrolled for a full year (e.g., a 
     person who buys in for 3 months in 2000 would pay the 
     deferred premium as though they participated for 12 months). 
     This is intended to act as a disincentive for temporary 
     enrollment.


 TITLE II. Access to Medicare Benefits for Displaced Workers 55-to-62 
                              Years of Age

       In addition to people ages 62 to 65, a targeted group of 55 
     to 61 year olds could buy into Medicare. The Medicare buy-in 
     would be the same as above, with the following exceptions.
       Eligibility: Persons would be eligible if they are between 
     ages 55 and 61 and: (1) lost their job because their firm 
     closed, downsized, or moved, or their position was eliminated 
     (defined as being eligible for unemployment insurance) after 
     January 1, 2000; (2) had health insurance through their 
     previous job for at least one year (certified through the 
     process created under HIPAA to guarantee continuation 
     coverage); and (3) do not have access to employer sponsored, 
     COBRA, or federal health insurance. Spouses of these eligible 
     people may also buy into Medicare.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay one, 
     geographically adjusted premium, with no Medicare ``loan''. 
     This premium represents what Medicare would pay on average 
     for all people in this age group plus an add-on (65 percent 
     of the age average) to compensate for some of the extra costs 
     of participants who may be sicker than average. These 
     premiums would be about $400 per month.
       Disenrollment: Like persons ages 62 to 65, eligible 
     displaced workers and their spouses must enroll in the buy-in 
     within 63 days of becoming eligible. Participants continue to 
     pay premiums until they voluntarily disenroll, gain access to 
     federal or employer-based insurance or turn 62 and become 
     eligible for the more general Medicare buy-in. Once they 
     disenroll, they may only re-enroll if they meet all the 
     eligibility rules again.


           TITLE III. Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act

       The bill would also help retirees and their dependents 
     whose former employer unexpectedly drops their retiree health 
     insurance, leaving them uncovered and with few options.
       Eligibility: Persons ages 55 to 65 and their dependents who 
     were receiving retiree health coverage but whose coverage was 
     terminated or substantially reduced (benefits' value reduced 
     by half or premiums increased to a level above 125 percent of 
     the applicable premium) would qualify for ``COBRA'' 
     continuation coverage.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay 125 percent of the 
     applicable premium. This premium is higher than what most 
     other COBRA participants pay (102 percent) because it is 
     expected that those who enroll will be sicker (have higher 
     costs) than other members of their age cohort.
       Enrollment: Participants would enroll through their former 
     employer, following the same rules as other COBRA eligibles.
       Disenrollment: Retirees would be eligible until they turn 
     65 years-old and could disenroll at any time.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Moynihan for his strong 
leadership on this issue. More than three million Americans aged 55 to 
64 have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and 
unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are 
victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel 
their health insurance.
  In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group 
increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have 
been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often 
after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage--and it is 
time for Congress to provide a helping hand.
  Many of these fellow citizens have serious health problems that 
threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them 
from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health 
problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their 
savings.
  These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other 
members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the 
longer they remain uninsured. This unnecessary burden of illness is a 
preventable human tragedy--and it adds to Medicare's long-term costs, 
because when these individuals turn 65, they enter the program with 
more costly health problems and greater unmet needs for health care 
services.
  Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be 
there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the 
health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for 
Medicare at 65.
  Our legislation provides three kinds of assistance. First, any 
uninsured American who is 62 years old or older and not yet eligible 
for Medicare can buy into the program. Participants will pay the full 
cost of their coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can 
defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare 
starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this 
defrayed premium will be paid back over time at a modest monthly 
charge, currently estimated at about $10 per month for each year of 
participation in the buy-in program. Individuals age 55-61 who lose 
their health insurance because they are laid off or because their 
company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare. Finally, people 
who have retired before 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health 
insurance coverage would be allowed to buy into the company's program 
for active workers if the company dropped retirement coverage.
  Today's proposal is a lifeline for all of these Americans. It is also 
a constructive step toward the day when every American will be 
guaranteed the fundamental right to health care.
  In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that 
this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and 
the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, 
the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this 
new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed 
through savings obtained by reducing fraud or abuse in Medicare.
  Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing 
that their critical years in the workforce will not be haunted by the 
fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic 
medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too

[[Page 953]]

young for Medicare but too old to purchase affordable private insurance 
coverage deserve our help--and we intend to see that they get it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 203. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for an equitable determination of the Federal medical 
assistance percentage; to the Committee on Finance.


      equitable federal medicaid assistance percentage act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to revise the 
formula for determining the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. 
Medicaid services and associated administrative costs are financed 
jointly by the Federal government and the States. The formula for the 
Federal share of a State's payments for services, known as the Federal 
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), was established when Medicaid was 
created as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965.
  The FMAP is a somewhat exotic creature, derived from the Hill-Burton 
Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946, specifically designed to 
provide a higher Federal matching rate for states with lower state 
funds, as measured by per capital income. A Senate colleague once 
described it to me as the South's revenge for the Civil War.
  The Federal government's share depends upon the square of the ratio 
of state per capita income to national per capita income. Per capita 
income is a proxy but not the only proxy for measuring the States' 
relative fiscal capacity and its population's need for assistance. In 
March 1982, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 
stated that,

       * * * the use of a single index, resident per capita 
     income, to measure fiscal capacity, seriously misrepresents 
     the actual ability of many governments to raise revenue. 
     Because states tax a wide range of economic activities other 
     than the income of their residents, the per capita income 
     measure fails to account for sources of revenue to which 
     income is only related in part. This misrepresentation 
     results in the systematic over and understatement of the 
     ability of many states to raise revenue. In addition, the 
     recent evidence suggests that per capital income has 
     deteriorated as a measure of capacity * * *

  Squaring the ration of state per capita income to national per capita 
income exaggerates the differences between States with regard to this 
inadequate proxy for both state wealth and of population in need of 
assistance. At a commencement address in 1977 at Kingsborough Community 
College in Brooklyn, New York, I proposed a change to the Hill-Burton 
formula by suggesting that the ``square'' in the formula be changed to 
the ``square root.'' The idea has not caught on.
  However, I remain hopeful. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a 
provision that increased the FMAP rate for Alaska. My colleagues in the 
Committee on Finance included this provision as an amendment in 
Committee Mark-up. The provision increased Alaska's FMAP rate from 50 
percent to 59.8 percent to reflect the higher cost of living relative 
to the national average. For states with a higher cost of living, the 
per capita income proxy systematically underestimates the state's 
population in need and overstates its relative capacity to raise 
revenues. As conferees, we posited:

       The current methodology for calculating match rates, per 
     capita income, is a poor and inadequate measure of the 
     states' needs and abilities to participate in the Medicaid 
     program. The conferees note that the poverty guidelines for 
     Alaska and Hawaii, for example, are different than those for 
     the rest of the nation but there is no variation from the 
     national calculation in the FMAP. The increase in Alaska's 
     FMAP demonstrates there is a recognition that a more accurate 
     measurement is needed in the program.

  The General Accounting Office (GAO) has studied the formula inequity 
for the past several years. In testimony before the Committee on 
Finance in 1995, GAO concluded:

       The current formula has not moderated disparities across 
     states with respect to the populations and benefits Medicaid 
     covers and the relative financial burden states bear in 
     funding their programs. Our work over the years shows that 
     the use of per capita income to reflect a state's wealth 
     sometimes overstates or understates the size of a state's 
     poverty population and its financial resources.

  The legislation that I introduce today--The Equitable Federal Medical 
Assistance Percentage Act of 1999--would provide a more accurate and 
equitable formula by using more precise measures of a state's relative 
capacity to raise revenue--or its wealth--and its share of the 
population in need. The original concept is preserved: The goal of the 
matching formula is to offset the imbalance between state resources and 
the number of people in need in the state. I call this the state fiscal 
imbalance. A state with a larger share of resources compared to its 
share of need is in a stronger fiscal position than a state with higher 
needs and fewer resources. The formula would measure the imbalance 
relative to its share of the national average: the state's fiscal 
imbalance is its share of the nation's resources compared to its share 
of the nation's population in need.
  State Share of Financing Resources. Per capita income only reflects a 
portion of a state's potential revenue. Perhaps in the 1950's and 
1960's, per capita income was the best available indicator of state's 
wealth. Currently, the Treasury Department estimates each state's total 
taxable resources or TTR. In 1994, TTR replaced per capita income in 
the formula for distributing funds under the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and 
Mental Health Services block grant. This proposed formula compares the 
state's TTR to sum of all states' TTRs. Funding capacity would be 
adjusted to account for the difference in regional health care costs. 
This provides a more accurate reflection of a state's ability to 
purchase comparable services with similar tax efforts. The health care 
price index is based on the Medicare hospital payment adjuster that 
accounts for geographic wage differences and on a proxy for office 
space costs.
  The Population-in-Need. The number of persons in need of public 
assistance would be measured by the state's population living below the 
poverty level. Per capita income--or the average mean income--is a 
particularly poor measure of poverty. An average income measure skews a 
state's situation if a state has extreme differences in income levels 
among its residents, such as a state with a high portion of residents 
with high-incomes and a high portion of residents with low-incomes. 
Despite similar per capita incomes, New York has a poverty rate that is 
nearly 50 percent greater than in Massachusetts, according to GAO.
  The EFMAP would also use adjusted poverty levels to reflect regional 
variation in cost of living. Without a cost of living adjustment, the 
national poverty level underestimates what constitutes poverty in New 
York, with a cost of living 13 percent above the national average. In 
addition, the state's adjusted poverty count would be weighted to 
account for higher cost populations. For example, health care costs for 
the elderly can be about two and a half to three and a half times that 
for adults and six to eight times the cost for children.
  Currently, New York's FMAP is 50 percent. This proposed formula with 
more accurate and equitable measures of wealth and need would provide 
New York with a 70 percent matching rate. In State Fiscal Year 1998-
1999, this would yield $6.5 billion in additional federal Medicaid 
funds for New York. In fact, several other states and the District of 
Columbia would receive a greater matching rate under this bill.
  In a response to a request from both then-Senator D'Amato and me in 
1997, GAO determined that had New York had a similar equitable formula, 
the state would have received between $3.4 billion and $6.5 billion in 
additional federal assistance during the period of 1989 through 1996. 
These additional federal funds would by no means eliminate the existing 
$18 billion deficit in the balance of payments that New York annually 
has each year. However, it would be a start, and an important first 
step toward correcting a longstanding inequity in the Federal 
government's balance of payments with the states.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the bill and the full 
text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 954]]



                                 S. 203

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Equitable Federal Medical 
     Assistance Percentage Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EQUITABLE DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 
                   PERCENTAGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) Determination of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance 
     Percentage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the 
     equitable Federal medical assistance percentage determined 
     under this subsection is, for any State for a fiscal year, 
     100 percent reduced by the product of 0.45 and the ratio of--
       ``(A) the State's share of cost-adjusted total taxable 
     resources determined under paragraph (2); to
       ``(B) the State's share of program need determined under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Determination of state's share of cost-adjusted total 
     taxable resources.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), with 
     respect to a State, the State's share of cost-adjusted total 
     taxable resources is the ratio of--
       ``(i)(I) an amount equal to the most recent 3-year average 
     of the total taxable resources (TTR) of the State, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury; divided by
       ``(II) the most recent 3-year average of the State's 
     geographic health care cost index (as determined under 
     subparagraph (B)); to
       ``(ii) an amount equal to the sum of the amounts determined 
     under clause (i) for all States.
       ``(B) State's geographic health care cost index.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(II), 
     the geographic health care cost index for a State for a 
     fiscal year is the sum of--

       ``(I) 0.10;
       ``(II) 0.75 multiplied by the ratio of--

       ``(aa) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for 
     hospital employees in the State or the District of Columbia 
     (as determined under clause (ii)); to
       ``(bb) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for 
     hospital employees in the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia (as determined under that clause); and

       ``(III) 0.15 multiplied by the State's fair market rent 
     index (as determined under clause (iii)).

       ``(ii) Determination of average annual wages of hospital 
     employees.--The Secretary shall provide for the determination 
     of the most recent 3-year average annual wages for hospital 
     employees in a State or the District of Columbia and, 
     collectively, in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
     based on the area wage data applicable to hospitals under 
     section 1886(d)(3)(E) (or, if such data no longer exists, 
     comparable data of hospital wages) for discharges occurring 
     during the fiscal years involved.
       ``(iii) Determination of fair market rent index.--For 
     purposes of clause (i)(III), a State's fair market rent index 
     is the ratio of--

       ``(I) the average annual fair market rent for 2-bedroom 
     housing units in the State or the District of Columbia, to be 
     determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     for the most recent 3 fiscal years for which data are 
     available; to
       ``(II) the average annual fair market rent for such housing 
     units for all States for such 3 fiscal years, as so 
     determined.

       ``(3) Determination of state's share of program need.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), with 
     respect to a State, the State's share of program need is the 
     ratio of--
       ``(i) the State's program need determined under 
     subparagraph (B); to
       ``(ii) the sum of the amounts determined under clause (i) 
     for all States.
       ``(B) Determination of state program need.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), a 
     State's program need is equal to the average (determined for 
     the most recent 5 fiscal years for which data are available) 
     of the sum of the products determined under clause (iv) for 
     each such fiscal year (based on the number of State residents 
     whose income is below the State's cost-of-living adjusted 
     poverty income level (as determined under clauses (ii) and 
     (iii)).
       ``(ii) Determination of number of state residents with 
     incomes belowthe State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty 
     level.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (iv), with 
     respect to each State and the District of Columbia, the 
     number of residents whose income for a fiscal year is below 
     the State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level 
     applicable to a family of the size involved (as determined 
     under clause (iii)) shall be determined.
       ``(II) Census data.--The determination of the number of 
     residents under subclause (I) shall be based on data made 
     generally available by the Bureau of the Census from the 
     Current Population Survey.

       ``(iii) Determination of state's cost-of-living adjusted 
     poverty income level.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (ii)(I), a 
     State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level is the 
     product of--

       ``(aa) the United States poverty income threshold for the 
     fiscal year involved (as defined by the Office of Management 
     and Budget for general statistical purposes); and
       ``(bb) the State's cost-of-living index (as determined 
     under subclause (II)).

       ``(II) Determination of state's cost-of-living index.--
     Subject to subclause (III), a State's cost-of-living index is 
     the sum of--

       ``(aa) 0.56; and
       ``(bb) the product of 0.44 and the State's fair market rent 
     index determined under paragraph (2)(B)(iii).

       ``(III) Alternate methodology.--The Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics may use an alternate methodology to the formula 
     set forth under subclause (II) to determine a State's cost-
     of-living index for purposes of subclause (I)(bb) if the 
     Commissioner determines that the alternate methodology 
     results in a more accurate determination of that index.

       ``(iv) Weighting of age categories of residents in poverty 
     to account for higher cost populations.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the products determined under this clause for a 
     fiscal year are the following:

       ``(I) Weighting of elderly residents in poverty.--The 
     number of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State 
     or the District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have 
     attained age 65 multiplied by 3.65.
       ``(II) Weighting of adult residents in poverty.--The number 
     of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the 
     District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have attained 
     age 21 but have not attained age 65 multiplied by 1.0.
       ``(III) Weighting of children in poverty.--The number of 
     residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the 
     District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have not 
     attained age 21 multiplied by 0.5.

       ``(4) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection and 
     subsection (b), the equitable Federal medical assistance 
     percentage is--
       ``(A) in the case of the District of Columbia, the 
     percentage determined under this subsection for the District 
     of Columbia (without regard to this paragraph) multiplied by 
     1.4.; and
       ``(B) in the case of Alaska, 59.8 percent.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``100 per centum'' and all that follows through ``Hawaii'' 
     and inserting ``the equitable Federal medical assistance 
     percentage determined under subsection (v)'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``50 per centum or more 
     than 83 per centum,,'' and inserting ``50 percent or more 
     than 83 percent, and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50 per centum'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting ``50 percent.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act take 
     effect on October 1, 1999.
                                  ____


       Summary of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance Percentage

       Purpose: This legislation would replace an outdated formula 
     for determining the federal match rate for Medicaid 
     expenditures. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage 
     (FMAP) formula was intended to account for each state's 
     financial burdens by measuring its relative wealth--or 
     ability to pay costs--and its population in need for 
     assistance--or its extent of poverty. However, the current 
     formula uses a rather crude proxy for these measurements--the 
     per capita income in the state.
       Current Formula: The Federal match rate (FMAP) for each 
     state is determined as follows:
       FMA=1-0.45 (state's per capita income/national per capita 
     income) \2\
       Per capita income measures both the state's financing 
     capacity and population in need.
       Proposed Legislation: The new formula is based on several 
     years of analysis by the GAO:

  
                                     State Share of Resources
    EFMAP=1-0.45         -----------------------------------------------
                                    State Share of Program Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
       A State's Share of resources would be measured by the 
     state's Total Taxable Revenue (TTR)--the total amount of 
     revenue raised in the state--compared to the sum of all 
     states' TTR. This state TTR amount is adjusted for geographic 
     differences in health care prices, or a state health care 
     index. The health care index adjustment accounts for the 
     state's ability to purchase comparable services with similar 
     tax efforts.
       State Program Need would be measured by the number of 
     residents with incomes below the poverty level compared to 
     the sum of all poor in the nation. To determine the number of 
     residents living below poverty, the Federal Poverty Level 
     would be adjusted for each state to account for geographic 
     cost of living differences. The adjusted poverty

[[Page 955]]

     count would also be weighted to account for higher cost 
     populations, such as the elderly.
       The proposal would apply the current 50 percent floor and 
     83 percent ceiling to EFMAP rates for states. The EFMAP would 
     be the federal matching rate for all program's that currently 
     use the FMAP, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program 
     (CHIP) and foster care, as well as Medicaid.
       Alaska would keep its current FMAP of 59.8 percent. The 
     District of Columbia would have an adjusted EFMAP rate of 
     reflect its locality status, as under current law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman:)
  S. 204. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, to 
require that any data relating to the incidence of poverty produced or 
published by the Secretary of Commerce for subnational areas is 
corrected for differences in the cost of living in those areas; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                  Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Presidents, I rise today to introduce the Poverty 
Data Correction Act of 1999, a bill to require that any data relating 
to the incidence of poverty in subnational areas be corrected for the 
differences in the cost of living in those areas. This legislation 
would correct a longstanding inequity and would provide us with more 
accurate information on the number of Americans living in poverty.
  Residents of states such as New York and Connecticut earn more, on 
average, than do residents of Mississippi or Alabama. But they also 
must spend more. One need only try to rent an apartment in New York 
City to understand this. Yet, we have a national poverty threshold 
adjusted only by family size and composition, not by where the family 
lives. A family of four just above the poverty threshold in New York 
City or Anchorage is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just 
below the threshold in, say, rural Arkansas. And yet that family in New 
York might be ineligible for federal aid and will not count in the 
tallies of the poverty population used to allocate funds among the 
states, while the Arkansas family will be eligible and will be counted.
  Professor Herman B. ``Dutch'' Leonard and Senior Research Associate 
Monica Friar of the Taubman Center for State and local government at 
Harvard have devised an index of poverty statistics that reflects the 
differences in the cost of living between States. If we look at the 
``Friar-Leonard State Cost-of-Living index,'' as it has come to be 
known, we find that, in Fiscal Year 1997, New York had a poverty rate 
of 20.5% third highest in the nation. yet the official poverty level 
for 1997 is 16.6%. These adjusted statistics still reflect poverty 
accurately: the poor states of Mississippi and New Mexico remain ranked 
higher than New York in this ranking of misfortune.
  Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these 
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute 
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, states with high 
costs of living--New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, California, 
just to name a few--are not getting their fair share of Federal dollars 
because differences in the cost of living are ignored. And the poor of 
these high cost states are penalized because they happen to live there. 
It is time to correct this inequity.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and its 
full text be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 204

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Poverty Data Correction Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after subchapter V the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

     ``Sec. 197. Correction of subnational data relating to 
       poverty

       ``(a) Any data relating to the incidence of poverty 
     produced or published by or for the Secretary for subnational 
     areas shall be corrected for differences in the cost of 
     living, and data produced for State and sub-State areas shall 
     be corrected for differences in the cost of living for at 
     least all States of the United States.
       ``(b) Data under this section shall be published in 1999 
     and at least every second year thereafter.

     ``Sec. 198. Development of State cost-of-living index and 
       State poverty thresholds

       ``(a) To correct any data relating to the incidence of 
     poverty for differences in the cost of living, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) develop or cause to be developed a State cost-of-
     living index which ranks and assigns an index value to each 
     State using data on wage, housing, and other costs relevant 
     to the cost of living; and
       ``(2) multiply the Federal Government's statistical poverty 
     thresholds by the index value for each State's cost of living 
     to produce State poverty thresholds for each State.
       ``(b) The State cost-of-living index and resulting State 
     poverty thresholds shall be published before September 30, 
     2000, for calendar year 1999 and shall be updated annually 
     for each subsequent calendar year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

``197. Correction of subnational data relating to poverty.
``198. Development of State cost-of-living index and State poverty 
              thresholds.''.
                                  ____


  Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions


   i. requires adjustment of poverty data for differences in cost of 
                                 living

       The bill would require that any data relating to poverty on 
     a subnational basis (including state-by-state data) be 
     corrected for the differences in the cost of living by state 
     or sub-state areas. The costs of basic needs, such as 
     housing, vary substantially from state-to-state and 
     assessments of poverty in the United States should take this 
     into account.


  ii. requires development of state cost-of-living index and poverty 
                               thresholds

       To enable the adjustments required above, the bill requires 
     the development of a state-specific cost-of-living index 
     based upon wage, housing, and other cost information relevant 
     to the cost of living. The bill also requires that the 
     Federal government's poverty thresholds be multiplied by this 
     index to produce state-specific poverty thresholds. These 
     thresholds, which vary by family size, are the ``poverty 
     line'' used to determine the number of individuals and 
     families in poverty.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 205. A bill to establish a Federal Commission on Statistical 
Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical system, 
to provide uniform safeguards for the confidentiality of information 
acquired from exclusively statistical purposes, and to improve the 
efficiency of Federal statistical programs and the quality of Federal 
statistics by permitting limited sharing of records among designated 
agencies for statistical purposes under strong safeguards; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


          federal commission on statistical policy act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in introducing legislation to establish 
a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy. Congressman Stephen Horn of 
California and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York plan to 
introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
  This legislation is similar to S. 1404, The Federal Statistical 
System Act of 1997, a bill which was favorably reported out of the 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs October 6 of last year by a 9 
to 0 vote.
  This Senator first introduced legislation to study the Federal 
statistical system on September 25, 1996, for the 104th Congress, and 
again on January 21, 1997, for the 105th Congress. Over the past few 
years, I have testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management and the House Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology to explain this legislation. 
This bill represents more than 2 years of work and much bipartisan 
cooperation.
  The Federal Commission on Statistical Policy would consist of 16 
Presidential and congressional appointees with expertise in fields such 
as actuarial science, finance, and economics. Its members would conduct 
a thorough review of the U.S. statistical system,

[[Page 956]]

and issue a report that would include recommendations on whether 
statistical agencies should be consolidated into a centralized Federal 
Statistical Service.
  Of course, we have an example of a consolidated statistical agency 
just across our northern border. Statistics Canada, the most 
centralized statistical agency among OECD countries, was established in 
November 1918 as a reaction to a familiar problem. At that time, the 
Canadian Minister of Industry was trying to obtain an estimate of the 
manpower resources that Canada could commit to the war effort. And he 
got widely different estimates from statistical agencies scattered 
throughout the government. Consolidation seemed the way to solve this 
problem, and so it happened--as it can in a parliamentary government--
rather quickly, just as World War I ended.
  In April of 1997, a member of my staff met in Ottawa with the 
Assistant Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada. He reported that 
Statistics Canada is doing quite well. Decisions about the allocation 
of resources among statistical functions are made at the highest levels 
of government because the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada holds 
a position equivalent to Deputy Cabinet Minister. He communicates 
directly with Deputy Ministers in other Cabinet Departments. In 
contrast, in the United States, statistical agencies are buried several 
levels below the Cabinet Secretaries, so it is difficult for the heads 
of these statistical agencies to bring issues to the attention of high-
ranking administration officials and Congress.
  Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides 
for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for 
apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote 
from article I, section I:

     . . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after the 
     first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and 
     within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as 
     they shall be Law direct.

  But, while the Constitution directed that, there be a census, there 
was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted 
by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in state governments 
collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from 
Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census 
was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior 
Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established 
Department of Commerce and Labor.
  The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, 
which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 
1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and 
Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 
following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the 
power to impose an income tax.
  A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the 
Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was 
Colonel Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New 
Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright 
pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on 
income, prices and wages. He had previously served as Chief of the 
Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in 
that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal census in Massachusetts.
  In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903, 
it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical agencies in 
the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor 
was formed in 1913, given labor an independent voice--as labor was 
``removed'' from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know 
as the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred to the newly created 
Department of Labor.
  And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they 
moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today, 
some 89 different organizations in the Federal government comprise 
parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these 
organizations have as their primary function the generation of data. 
These 11 organizations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date
               Agency                      Department        established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Statistical    Agriculture...........       1863
 Service.
Statistics of Income Division, IRS.  Treasury..............       1866
Economic Research Service..........  Agriculture...........       1867
National Center for Education        Education.............       1867
 Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.........  Labor.................       1884
Bureau of the Census...............  Commerce..............       1902
Bureau of Economic Analysis........  Commerce..............       1912
National Center for Health           Health and Human             1912
 Statistics.                          Services.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.......  Justice...............       1968
Energy Information Administration..  Energy................       1974
Bureau of Transportation Statistics  Transportation........       1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          need for legislation

  President Kennedy once said:

       Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires 
     the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraints, a 
     willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the 
     general interest, and also it requires knowledge.

That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin 
to solve a problem until you can measure it.
  This legislation would require the Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive examination of the current statistical system and focus 
particularly on whether to create a centralized Federal Statistical 
Service.
  In September 1996, prior to introduction of my first bill to 
establish a Commission to study the U.S. statistical system, I received 
a letter from nine former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers 
(CEA) endorsing this legislation. Excluding two recent chairs, who at 
that time were still serving in the Clinton Administration, the 
signatories include virtually every living former chair of the CEA. 
While acknowledging that the United States ``possesses a first-class 
statistical system,'' these former Chairmen remind us that ``problems 
periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered 
responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows:

       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.

  The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan 
Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, 
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum.
  It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical 
system in the Executive Branch began over three decades ago. I was 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the 
administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in 
which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I 
say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable 
institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of 
Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not 
have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, 
who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even 
shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some 
familiarity with the field.
  For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a 
committee led by a Nobel laureate, George Stigler. The Committee 
stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics noting that:

       The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost 
     continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are 
     essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function 
     of measuring the average movements of prices.

  While the Final Report of the Advisory Commission: To Study The 
Consumer Price Index. (The Boskin Commission) focused primarily on the 
extent to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the Commission 
also addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal 
statistical programs and recommended that:

       Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Labor to share information in the 
     interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic 
     statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their 
     development and production.


[[Page 957]]


  There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our 
nation's statistical infrastructure. In her invaluable book Organizing 
to Count, Janet L. Norwood, former Commissioner of the BLS, has 
described efforts to bring some order to the national statistical 
system, going back to a Commission appointed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in 1903 and following through to a 1990 Working Group of the 
Cabinet Council for Economic Policy, chaired by Michael Boskin. One 
such effort occurred in July of 1933 when, by Executive Order, 
President Roosevelt set up a Central Statistical Board--organized by 
the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, and the sometime Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Isador Lubin. I say sometime because 
although Lubin headed the Bureau from 1933-1946, much of his time was 
spent ``on leave'' serving in various White House statistical 
assignments, including as a special statistical assistant to the 
President. In their fine history of the agency, The First Hundred Years 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. 
Moye write that the Board was then established by Congress ``in 1935 
for a 5-year period to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and 
promote economy in the work of government statistics.''
  But in most cases little or no action has been taken on their 
recommendations. The result of this inaction has been an ever expanding 
statistical system. It continues to grow in order to meet new data 
needs, but with little or no regard for the overall objectives of the 
system. As Norwood notes in her book:

       The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from 
     centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong 
     coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, 
     therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard 
     pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, 
     increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for 
     objective data of high quality is steadily rising.

  In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting, it is 
unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical 
agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical 
system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform 
the system until we have heard from experts in the field.
  The legislation establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical 
Policy for a three-year term. The Commission would consist of 16 
members: eight of whom to be chosen by the President; four of whom by 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the 
Majority and Majority Leader; and four of whom by the President pro 
tempore of the Senate in consultation with the Majority and Minority 
Leader.
  In an initial 18-month period, the Commission would determine whether 
to consolidate the Federal statistical system, and would also make 
recommendations with respect to ways to achieve greater efficiency in 
carrying out Federal statistical programs. If the Commission recommends 
creation of a newly established independent Federal statistical agency, 
designated as the Federal Statistical Service, the Commission's report 
would contain draft legislation incorporating such recommendations.
  Over the full term of the Commission, it would also conduct 
comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress that:
  Evaluate the mission of various statistical agencies and the 
relevance of such missions to current and future needs;
  Evaluate key statistics and measures and make recommendations on ways 
to improve such statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
  Review information technology and make recommendations of appropriate 
methods for disseminating statistical data; and
  Compare our statistical system with the systems of other nations.
  This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The 
Commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will 
be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of 
inattention to this very important issue.
  I ask unanimous consent the full text of the letter from nine former 
Chairmen of the Council of Economic Adviser, a summary of the bill, and 
the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 205

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Sense of the Congress.

           TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

Sec. 101. Establishment.
Sec. 102. Duties of Commission.
Sec. 103. Powers.
Sec. 104. Commission procedures.
Sec. 105. Personnel matters.
Sec. 106. Other administrative provisions.
Sec. 107. Termination.
Sec. 108. Fast-track procedures for statistical reorganization bill.

TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Statistical Data Centers.
Sec. 205. Statistical Data Center responsibilities.
Sec. 206. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 207. Coordination and oversight.
Sec. 208. Implementing regulations.
Sec. 209. Conforming amendments and proposed changes in law.
Sec. 210. Effect on other laws.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical 
     information in the development of national priorities and 
     policies and in the administration of public programs, finds 
     the following:
       (1) While the demand for statistical information has grown 
     substantially during the last 30 years, the difficulty of 
     coordinating planning within the decentralized Federal 
     statistical system has limited the usefulness of statistics 
     in defining problems and determining national policies to 
     deal with complex social and economic issues.
       (2) Coordination and planning among the statistical 
     programs of the Government are necessary to strengthen and 
     improve the quality and utility of Federal statistics and to 
     reduce duplication and waste in information collected for 
     statistical purposes.
       (3) High-quality Federal statistical products and programs 
     are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
       (4) The challenge of providing high-quality statistics has 
     increased because our economy and society are more complex, 
     new technologies are available, and decisionmakers need more 
     complete and accurate data.
       (5) Maintaining quality of Federal statistical products 
     requires full cooperation between Federal statistical 
     agencies and those persons and organizations that respond to 
     their requests for information.
       (6) Federal statistical products and programs can be 
     improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by 
     permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with 
     statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with 
     confidentiality commitments made to respondents.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a more centralized statistical system is integral to 
     efficiency;
       (2) with increased efficiency comes better integration of 
     research methodology, survey design, and economies of scale;
       (3) the Chief Statistician must have the authority, 
     personnel, and other resources necessary to carry out the 
     duties of that office effectively, including duties relating 
     to statistical forms clearance; and
       (4) statistical forms clearance at the Office of Management 
     and Budget should be better distinguished from regulatory 
     forms clearance.
           TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy'' (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 16 
     members as follows:
       (1) Appointments by president.--Eight members appointed by 
     the President from among individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) have expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses

[[Page 958]]

     of statistical information, statistical analysis, or 
     management of complex organizations.
       (2) Appointments from the house of representatives.--Four 
     members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives, from among 
     individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by 
     virtue of expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical 
     information, statistical analysis, or management of complex 
     organizations.
       (3) Appointments from the senate.--Four members appointed 
     by the President pro tempore of the Senate, in consultation 
     with the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, 
     from among individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by 
     virtue of expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical 
     information, statistical analysis, or management of complex 
     organizations.
       (c) Deadline for Appointment.--Members shall be appointed 
     to the Commission not later than 4 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Political Affiliation.--
       (1) Appointments by president.--Of the members of the 
     Commission appointed under subsection (b)(1), not more than 4 
     may be of the same political party.
       (2) Appointments by speaker of the house of 
     representatives.--Of the members of the Commission appointed 
     under subsection (b)(2), not more than 2 may be of the same 
     political party.
       (3) Appointments by president pro tempore.--Of the members 
     of the Commission appointed under subsection (b)(3), not more 
     than 2 may be of the same political party.
       (e) Chairman.--The Commission shall select a Chairman from 
     among the members of the Commission by a majority vote of all 
     members.
       (f) Consultation Before Appointments.--In making 
     appointments under subsection (b), the President, the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate shall consult 
     with appropriate professional organizations, including State 
     and local governments.
       (g) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.

     SEC. 102. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Study and Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall study and 
     submit to Congress and the President a written report and 
     draft legislation as necessary and appropriate on the Federal 
     statistical system including--
       (1) recommendations on whether the Federal statistical 
     system could be reorganized by consolidating the statistical 
     functions of agencies that carry out statistical programs;
       (2) recommendations on how the consolidation described in 
     paragraph (1) may be achieved without disruption in the 
     release of statistical products;
       (3) any other recommendations regarding how the Federal 
     statistical system could be reorganized to achieve greater 
     efficiency, improve quality, timeliness, and adaptability to 
     change in carrying out Federal statistical programs;
       (4) recommendations on possible improvements to procedures 
     for the release of major economic and social indicators by 
     the United States; and
       (5) recommendations to ensure requirements that State data 
     and information shall be maintained in a confidential, 
     consistent, and comparable manner.
       (b) Presidential Review.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Time period for review.--Not later than 15 days after 
     the receipt of the report (including any draft legislation) 
     under subsection (a), the President shall approve or 
     disapprove of the report.
       (B) Approval or inaction.--If the President approves the 
     report, the Commission shall submit the report to Congress on 
     the day following such approval. If the President does not 
     disapprove the report, the Commission shall submit the report 
     to Congress on the day following the 15-day period described 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves the report, 
     the President shall note his specific objections and any 
     suggested changes to the Commission.
       (D) Final report after disapproval.--The Commission shall 
     consider any objections and suggested changes submitted by 
     the President and may modify the report based on those 
     objections and suggested changes. Not later than 10 days 
     after receipt of the President's disapproval under 
     subparagraph (C), the Commission shall submit the final 
     report (as modified if modified) to Congress.
       (c) Statistical Reorganization Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the written report submitted to 
     Congress under subsection (a) contains recommendations on the 
     consolidation of the Federal statistical functions of the 
     United States into a Federal Statistical Service, the report 
     shall contain draft legislation incorporating such 
     recommendations under subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Draft legislation.--Draft legislation submitted to 
     Congress under this subsection shall be strictly limited to 
     implementation of recommendations for the consolidation or 
     reorganization of the statistical functions of Federal 
     agencies.
       (3) Provisions in draft legislation.--Draft legislation 
     submitted to Congress under this subsection that would 
     establish a Federal Statistical Service shall--
       (A) provide for an Administrator and Deputy Administrator 
     of the Federal Statistical Service, and the creation of other 
     officers as appropriate; and
       (B) contain a provision designating the Administrator as a 
     member of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy 
     established under section 3504(e)(8) of title 44, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Other Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall also conduct 
     comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress on all 
     matters relating to the Federal statistical infrastructure, 
     including longitudinal surveys conducted by private agencies 
     and partially funded by the Federal Government for the 
     purpose of identifying opportunities to improve the quality 
     of statistics in the United States.
       (2) Inclusions.--Studies under this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) a review and evaluation of the mission of various 
     statistical agencies and the relevance of such missions to 
     current and future needs;
       (B) an evaluation of key statistics and measures and 
     recommendations on ways to improve such statistics so that 
     the statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
       (C) a review of interagency coordination of statistical 
     data and recommendations of methods to standardize collection 
     procedures and surveys, as appropriate, and presentation of 
     data throughout the Federal system;
       (D) a review of information technology and recommendations 
     of appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data, 
     with special emphasis on resources such as the Internet that 
     allow the public to obtain information in a timely and cost-
     effective manner;
       (E) an identification and examination of issues regarding 
     individual privacy in the context of statistical data;
       (F) a comparison of the United States statistical system to 
     statistical systems of other nations for the purposes of 
     identifying best practices;
       (G) a consideration of the coordination of statistical data 
     with other nations and international agencies, such as the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and
       (H) recommendations regarding the presentation to the 
     public of statistical data collected by Federal agencies, and 
     standards of accuracy for statistical data used by Federal 
     agencies, including statistical data relating to--
       (i) the national poverty level and county poverty levels in 
     the United States;
       (ii) the Consumer Price Index;
       (iii) the gross domestic product; and
       (iv) other indicators of economic and social activity, 
     including marriage and divorce in the United States.
       (e) Definition of Federal Statistical Service.--As used in 
     this section, the term ``Federal Statistical Service'' means 
     an entity established after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act as an independent agency in the executive branch, the 
     purpose of which is to carry out Federal statistical programs 
     and to which the statistical functions of Federal statistical 
     agencies are transferred.

     SEC. 103. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act 
     at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as 
     the Commission considers appropriate.
       (b) Obtaining Information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act. 
     Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head of 
     that department or agency shall furnish that information to 
     the Commission.
       (c) Contract Authority.--The Commission may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons 
     without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 
     U.S.C. 5).

     SEC. 104. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman or a majority of its members.

[[Page 959]]

       (b) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (c) Delegation of Authority.--Any member or agent of the 
     Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     Act.
       (d) Voting.--The Commission shall adopt any recommendation 
     by a vote of a majority of its members.

     SEC. 105. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraphs (2)(B), (3), or (4) of section 101(b) shall 
     be entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the rate of 
     basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which they are engaged in the 
     actual performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of 
     personnel as it considers appropriate, including an Executive 
     Director.
       (d) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--Staff of 
     the Commission may be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so 
     appointed may not receive pay in excess of the highest basic 
     rate of pay established for the Senior Executive Service 
     under section 5382 of such title.

     SEC. 106. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Postal and Printing Services.-- The Commission may use 
     the United States mails and obtain printing and binding 
     services in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the United States.
       (b) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
       (c) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 107. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 108. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR STATISTICAL REORGANIZATION 
                   BILL.

       (a) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     section is enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such it 
     shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which it specifically 
     applies, and shall supersede other rules only to the extent 
     that they are inconsistent with this section; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as in the case of any other rule of that House.
       (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``statistical reorganization bill'' means only a bill of 
     either House of Congress--
       (1) that is identical to the draft legislation submitted to 
     Congress by the Commission under section 102(b); and
       (2) that is introduced as provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Introduction and Referral.--Within 15 legislative days 
     after the Commission submits to Congress legislation under 
     section 102(b), such legislation shall be introduced (by 
     request) in the House by the Majority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and shall be introduced (by request) in the 
     Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate. Such bills shall 
     be referred to the appropriate committee in each House.
       (d) Period for Committee and Floor Consideration.--
       (1) Discharge.--If the committee of either House to which a 
     statistical reorganization bill has been referred has not 
     reported it at the close of the sixtieth day after its 
     introduction, such committee may be discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill upon a petition supported in 
     writing in the Senate by 10 Members of the Senate and in the 
     House of Representatives by 40 Members of the House of 
     Representatives and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       (2) Days.--For purposes of this subsection, in computing a 
     number of days in either House, there shall be excluded the 
     days on which that House is not in session because of an 
     adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain or an 
     adjournment of the Congress sine die.
       (e) Floor Consideration in the House.--A motion in the 
     House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a 
     statistical reorganization bill shall be highly privileged 
     except that a motion to proceed to consider may only be made 
     on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which 
     the Member making the motion announces to the House his 
     intention to do so. The motion to proceed to consider is not 
     debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, 
     nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by 
     which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
       (f) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
       (1) Motion to proceed.--On or after the fifth day after the 
     date on which a statistical reorganization bill or conference 
     report is placed on the Senate calendar, it shall be in order 
     for any Senator to make a motion to proceed to consideration 
     of the bill or conference report. The motion shall be 
     privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion 
     shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to.
       (2) Final passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of 
     the debate on a statistical reorganization bill or conference 
     report, the vote on final passage shall occur.
       (g) Conference.--In the Senate, a motion to elect or to 
     authorize the appointment of conferees shall not be 
     debatable.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Commission 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out the functions of 
     the Commission.
TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Statistical 
     Confidentiality Act''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) High quality Federal statistical products and programs 
     are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
       (2) The challenge of providing high quality statistics has 
     increased because the Nation's economy and society are more 
     complex, new technologies are available, and decision makers 
     need more complete and accurate data.
       (3) Maintaining quality requires full cooperation between 
     Federal statistical agencies and those persons and 
     organizations that respond to requests for information.
       (4) Federal statistical products and programs can be 
     improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by 
     permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with 
     statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with 
     confidentiality commitments made to respondents.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are the 
     following:
       (1) To provide that individually identifiable information 
     furnished either directly or indirectly to designated 
     statistical agencies for exclusively statistical purposes 
     shall not be disclosed in individually identifiable form by 
     such agencies for any other purpose without the informed 
     consent of the respondent.
       (2) To prohibit the use by such agencies, in individually 
     identifiable form, of any information collected, compiled, or 
     maintained solely for statistical purposes under Federal 
     authority, to make any decision or take any action directly 
     affecting the rights, benefits, and privileges of the person 
     to whom the information pertains, except with the person's 
     consent.
       (3) To reduce the reporting burden, duplication, and 
     expense imposed on the public by permitting interagency 
     exchange, solely for statistical purposes, of individually 
     identifiable information needed for statistical programs, and 
     to establish secure conditions for such exchanges.
       (4) To reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of 
     statistical programs by facilitating cooperative projects 
     between statistical agencies, and to create a secure 
     environment where expertise and data resources that reside in 
     different agencies can be brought together to address the 
     information needs of the public.
       (5) To reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure of 
     information maintained solely for statistical purposes by 
     designating specific statistical agencies that are authorized 
     to receive otherwise privileged information for such purposes 
     from other agencies, and to prescribe specific conditions and 
     procedures that must be complied with in any such exchange.
       (6) To establish a consistent basis under the requirements 
     of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (popularly 
     known as the ``Freedom of Information Act'') for exempting a 
     defined class of statistical information from compulsory 
     disclosure.
       (7) To ensure that existing avenues for public access to 
     administrative data or information under section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code (popularly known as the ``Privacy 
     Act'') or section 552 of such title (popularly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'') are retained without change.
       (8) To establish consistent procedural safeguards for 
     records disclosed exclusively for statistical purposes, 
     including both public input and an oversight process to 
     ensure fair information practices.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:

[[Page 960]]

       (1) The term ``agency'' means--
       (A) any ``executive agency'' as defined under section 102 
     of title 31, United States Code; or
       (B) any ``agency'' as defined under section 3502 of title 
     44, United States Code.
       (2) The term ``agent'' means a person designated by a 
     Statistical Data Center to perform, either in the capacity of 
     a Federal employee or otherwise, exclusively statistical 
     activities authorized by law under the supervision or control 
     of an officer or employee of that Statistical Data Center, 
     and who has agreed in writing to comply with all provisions 
     of law that affect information acquired by that Statistical 
     Data Center.
       (3) The term ``identifiable form'' means any representation 
     of information that permits information concerning individual 
     subjects to be reasonably inferred by either direct or 
     indirect means.
       (4) The term ``nonstatistical purpose'' means any purpose 
     that is not a statistical purpose, and includes any 
     administrative, regulatory, adjudicatory, or other purpose 
     that affects the rights, privileges, or benefits of a 
     particular identifiable respondent.
       (5) The term ``respondent'' means a person who or 
     organization that--
       (A) is requested or required to supply information to an 
     agency;
       (B) is the subject of information requested or required to 
     be supplied to an agency; or
       (C) provides that information to an agency.
       (6) The term ``statistical activities''--
       (A) means the collection, compilation, processing, or 
     analysis of data for the purpose of describing or making 
     estimates concerning the whole or relevant groups or 
     components within, the economy, society, or the natural 
     environment; and
       (B) includes the development of methods or resources that 
     support those activities, such as measurement methods, 
     models, statistical classifications, or sampling frames.
       (7) The term ``statistical purpose''--
       (A) means the description, estimation, or analysis of the 
     characteristics of groups without regard to the identities of 
     individuals or organizations that comprise such groups; and
       (B) includes the development, implementation, or 
     maintenance of methods, technical or administrative 
     procedures, or information resources that support such 
     purposes.

     SEC. 204. STATISTICAL DATA CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Each of the following is designated as a 
     Statistical Data Center:
       (1) The Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of 
     Commerce.
       (2) The Bureau of the Census in the Department of Commerce.
       (3) The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of 
     Labor.
       (4) The National Agricultural Statistics Service in the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (5) The National Center for Education Statistics in the 
     Department of Education.
       (6) The National Center for Health Statistics in the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (7) The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division 
     of the Energy Information Administration in the Department of 
     Energy.
       (8) The Division of Science Resources Studies in the 
     National Science Foundation.
       (b) Designation.--In the case of a reorganization that 
     eliminates, or substantially alters the mission or functions 
     of, an agency or agency component listed under subsection 
     (a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     after consultation with the head of the agency proposing the 
     reorganization, may designate an agency or agency component 
     that shall serve as a successor Statistical Data Center under 
     the terms of this title, if the Director determines that--
       (1) the primary activities of the proposed Statistical Data 
     Center are statistical activities specifically authorized by 
     law;
       (2) the successor agency or component would participate in 
     data sharing activities that significantly improve Federal 
     statistical programs or products;
       (3) the successor agency or component has demonstrated its 
     capability to protect the individual confidentiality of any 
     shared data; and
       (4) the statutes that apply to the proposed Statistical 
     Data Center are not inconsistent with this title.
       (c) Notice and Comment.--The head of an agency seeking 
     designation as a successor under this section shall, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the consequences of such designation and on those 
     determinations upon which the designation is proposed to be 
     based.
       (d) Prohibition Against Increase in Number of Centers.--No 
     action taken under this section shall increase the number of 
     Statistical Data Centers authorized by this title.

     SEC. 205. STATISTICAL DATA CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The Statistical Data Centers shall--
       (1) identify opportunities to eliminate duplication and 
     otherwise reduce reporting burden and cost imposed on the 
     public by sharing information for exclusively statistical 
     purposes;
       (2) enter into joint statistical projects to improve the 
     quality and reduce the cost of statistical programs;
       (3) safeguard the confidentiality of individually 
     identifiable information acquired for statistical purposes by 
     assuring its physical security and by controlling access to, 
     and uses made of, such information; and
       (4) respect the rights and privileges of the public by 
     observing and promoting fair information practices.

     SEC. 206. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Data or information acquired by a 
     Statistical Data Center for exclusively statistical purposes 
     shall be used only for statistical purposes. Such data or 
     information shall not be disclosed in identifiable form for 
     any other purpose without the informed consent of the 
     respondent.
       (b) Rule Distinguishing Data or Information.--If a 
     Statistical Data Center is authorized by any other statute to 
     collect data or information for nonstatistical purposes, the 
     head of the Statistical Data Center shall clearly distinguish 
     such data or information by rule. Such rule shall provide for 
     fully informing the respondents requested or required to 
     supply such data or information of such nonstatistical uses 
     before collecting such data or information.
       (c) Disclosure.--Data or information may be disclosed by an 
     agency to 1 or more Statistical Data Centers, if--
       (1) the disclosure and use are not inconsistent with any 
     provision of law or Executive order that explicitly limit the 
     statistical purposes for which such data or information may 
     be used;
       (2) the disclosure is not prohibited by law or Executive 
     order in the interest of national security;
       (3) the data or information are to be used exclusively for 
     statistical purposes by the Statistical Data Center or 
     Centers; and
       (4) the disclosure is made under the terms of a written 
     agreement between a Statistical Data Center or Centers and 
     the agency supplying information as authorized by this 
     subsection, specifying--
       (A) the data or information to be disclosed;
       (B) the purposes for which the data or information are to 
     be used; and
       (C) appropriate security procedures to safeguard the 
     confidentiality of the data or information.
       (d) Agreements.--Data or information supplied to a 
     Statistical Data Center under an agreement authorized under 
     subsection (b)(4) shall not be disclosed in identifiable form 
     by that Center for any purpose, except that data or 
     information collected directly by any party to such agreement 
     may be disclosed to any other party to that agreement for 
     exclusively statistical purposes specified in that agreement.
       (e) Notice.--Whenever a written agreement authorized under 
     subsection (c)(4) concerns data that respondents were 
     required by law to report and the agreement contains terms 
     that could not reasonably have been anticipated by 
     respondents who provided the data that will be disclosed, or 
     upon the initiative of any party to such an agreement, or 
     whenever ordered by the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, the terms of such agreement shall be described in 
     a public notice issued by the agency that intends to disclose 
     the data. Such notice shall allow a minimum of 60 days for 
     public comment before such agreement shall take effect. The 
     Director shall be fully apprised of any issues raised by the 
     public and may suspend the effect of such an agreement to 
     permit modifications responsive to public comments.
       (f) FOIA and Privacy Act.--The disclosure of data or 
     information by an agency under subsection (c) shall in no way 
     alter the responsibility of that agency under other statutes, 
     including sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United States 
     Code, for the disclosure or withholding of the same or 
     similar information retained by that agency.
       (g) Disclosure Provisions of Other Laws.--If information 
     obtained by an agency is released to another agency under 
     this section, all provisions of law (including penalties) 
     that relate to the unlawful disclosure of information apply 
     to the officers, employees, or agents of the agency to which 
     information is released to the same extent and in the same 
     manner as the provisions apply to the officers and employees 
     of the agency which originally obtained the information. The 
     officers, employees, and agents of the agency to which the 
     information is released, in addition, shall be subject to the 
     same provisions of law, including penalties, relating to the 
     unlawful disclosure of information that would apply to 
     officers and employees of that agency if the information had 
     been collected directly by that agency.

     SEC. 207. COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall coordinate and oversee the confidentiality 
     and disclosure policies established by this title.
       (b) Report of Disclosure Agreements.--
       (1) Report to the office of management and budget.--The 
     head of a Statistical Data Center shall report to the Office 
     of Management and Budget--
       (A) each disclosure agreement entered into under this 
     title;
       (B) the results of any review of information security 
     undertaken at the request of the Office of Management and 
     Budget; and
       (C) the results of any similar review undertaken on the 
     initiative of the Statistical Data Center or an agency 
     supplying data or information to a Statistical Data Center.

[[Page 961]]

       (2) Report to congress.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall include a summary of all reports 
     submitted to the Director under this subsection and any 
     actions taken by the Director to advance the purposes of this 
     title in the Office's annual report to the Congress on 
     statistical programs.
       (c) Review and Approval of Rules.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall review and approve any 
     rules proposed pursuant to this title for consistency with 
     this title and chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code.

     SEC. 208. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or the head 
     of a Statistical Data Center or of an agency providing 
     information to a Center, may promulgate such rules as may be 
     necessary to implement this title.
       (b) Consistency.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall promulgate rules or provide such other 
     guidance as may be needed to ensure consistent interpretation 
     of this title by the affected agencies.
       (c) Agency Rules.--Rules governing disclosures of 
     information authorized by this title shall be promulgated by 
     the agency that originally collected the information, subject 
     to the review and approval required under this title.

     SEC. 209. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES IN LAW.

       (a) Department of Commerce.--
       (1) The first section of the Act of January 27, 1938 (15 
     U.S.C. 176a; 52 Stat. 8) is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as provided in the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act, the''.
       (2)(A) Chapter 10 of title 13, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after section 401 the following:

     ``Sec. 402. Exchange of census information with Statistical 
       Data Centers

       ``The Bureau of the Census is authorized to provide data 
     collected under this title to Statistical Data Centers 
     (Centers) named in the Statistical Confidentiality Act, or 
     their successors designated under the terms of that Act.''.
       (B) The table of sections for chapter 10 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 401 the following:

``402. Exchange of census information with Statistical Data Centers.''.

       (b) Department of Energy.--
       (1) Section 205 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by adding after subsection 
     (l) the following new subsection:
       ``(m)(1)(A) The Administrator shall designate an 
     organizational unit to conduct statistical activities 
     pertaining to energy end use consumption information. Using 
     procedures authorized by the Statistical Confidentiality Act, 
     the Administrator shall ensure the security, integrity, and 
     confidentiality of the information that has been submitted in 
     identifiable form and supplied exclusively for statistical 
     purposes either directly to the Administrator or by other 
     Government agencies.
       ``(B) To carry out this section, the Administrator shall 
     establish procedures for the disclosure of these data to 
     Statistical Data Centers for statistical purposes only 
     consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act.
       ``(2)(A) A person may not publish, cause to be published, 
     or otherwise communicate, statistical information designated 
     in paragraph (1) in a manner that identifies any respondent.
       ``(B) A person may not use statistical information 
     designated in paragraph (1) for a nonstatistical purpose.
       ``(C) The identity of a respondent who supplies, or is the 
     subject of, information collected for statistical purposes--
       ``(i) may not be disclosed through any process, including 
     disclosure through legal process, unless the respondent 
     consents in writing;
       ``(ii) may not be disclosed to the public, unless 
     information has been transformed into a statistical or 
     aggregate form that does not allow the identification of the 
     respondent who supplied the information or who is the subject 
     of that information; and
       ``(iii) may not, without the written consent of the 
     respondent, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose 
     in an action, suit, or other judicial or administrative 
     proceeding.
       ``(D) Any person who violates subparagraphs (2)(A), (B), or 
     (C), upon conviction, shall be fined under title 18, United 
     States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(E) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(i) The term `person' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 1 of title 1, United States Code, but also includes a 
     local, State, or Federal entity or officer or employee of a 
     local State or Federal entity.
       ``(ii) The terms `statistical activities', `identifiable 
     form', `statistical purpose', `nonstatistical purpose', and 
     `respondent' have the meaning given those terms in section 
     203 of the Statistical Confidentiality Act.
       ``(3) Statistical information designated in paragraph (1) 
     is exempt from disclosure under sections 205(f) and 407 of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act and paragraphs 12, 
     20, and 59 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 
     or any other law which requires disclosure of that 
     information.''.
       (2) Section 205(f) of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by inserting ``, excluding 
     information designated solely for statistical purposes under 
     subsection (m)(1),'' after ``analysis''.
       (3) Section 407 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7177a) is amended by inserting ``, excluding 
     information designated solely for statistical purposes under 
     subsection (m)(1),'' after ``information''.
       (4) The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 12 (15 U.S.C. 771), by adding after 
     subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) This section does not apply to information designated 
     solely for statistical purposes under section 205(m)(1) of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.'';
       (B) in section 20(a)(3) (15 U.S.C. 779), by inserting ``, 
     excluding information designated solely for statistical 
     purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7135)'' after ``information''; 
     and
       (C) in section 59 (15 U.S.C. 790h), by inserting ``, 
     excluding information designated solely for statistical 
     purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C 7135)'' after ``information''.
       (c) Department of Health and Human Services.--Section 306 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(o) Sharing of Identifying Information for Statistical 
     Purposes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may, subject to the 
     provisions of paragraph (2), designate as an agent of the 
     Center (within the meaning of section 203(2) of the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act) an individual--
       ``(A) who is not otherwise an employee, official, or agent 
     of the Center; and
       ``(B) who enters into a written agreement with the Director 
     specifying terms and conditions for sharing of statistical 
     information.
       ``(2) Effect of designation.--An individual designated as 
     an agent of the Center pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to all restrictions on the use and disclosure of 
     statistical information obtained by the individual under the 
     agreement specified in paragraph (1)(B), and to all civil and 
     criminal penalties applicable to violations of such 
     restrictions, including penalties under section 1905 of title 
     18, United States Code, that would apply to the individual if 
     an employee of the Center.''.
       (d) Department of Labor.--The Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics shall be authorized to designate agents, as 
     defined under section 203(2) of this title.
       (e) National Science Foundation.--Section 14 of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1873) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph following the heading of 
     subsection (i) and inserting the following:
       ``Information supplied to the Foundation or its contractor 
     in survey forms, questionnaires, or similar instruments for 
     purposes of section 3(a) (5) or (6) by an individual, by an 
     industrial or commercial organization, or by an educational 
     or academic institution that has received a pledge of 
     confidentiality from the Foundation, may not be disclosed to 
     the public unless the information has been transformed into 
     statistical or abstract formats that do not allow the 
     identification of the supplier. Such information shall be 
     used in identifiable form only for statistical purposes as 
     defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act. The names of 
     individuals and organizations supplying such information may 
     not be disclosed to the public.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and 
     inserting the following new subsection after subsection (i):
       ``(j) Obligations of Researchers.--In support of functions 
     authorized by section 3(a) (5) or (6), the Foundation may 
     designate, at its discretion, authorized persons, including 
     employees of Federal, State, or local agencies (including 
     local educational agencies) and employees of private 
     organizations who may have access, for exclusively 
     statistical purposes as defined in the Statistical 
     Confidentiality Act, to identifiable information collected 
     pursuant to subsection (a) (5) or (6) of this title. No such 
     person may--
       ``(1) publish information collected under section 3(a) (5) 
     or (6) in such a manner that either an individual, an 
     industrial or commercial organization, or an educational or 
     academic institution that has received a pledge of 
     confidentiality from the Foundation can be specifically 
     identified;
       ``(2) permit anyone other than individuals authorized by 
     the Foundation to examine in identifiable form data relating 
     to an individual, to an industrial or commercial 
     organization, or to an educational or academic institution 
     that has received a pledge of confidentiality from the 
     Foundation; or
       ``(3) knowingly and willfully request or obtain any 
     confidential information described

[[Page 962]]

     in subsection (i) from the Foundation under false pretenses.
     Any person who violates these restrictions shall be guilty of 
     a misdemeanor and fined not more than $10,000.''.
       (f) Disclosure Penalties.--Section 1905 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or agent of a Statistical Data Center 
     as defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act,'' after 
     ``thereof''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall be fined not more than $1,000'' and 
     inserting ``shall be fined under this title''.

     SEC. 210. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Title 44, U.S.C.--This title, including the amendments 
     made by this title, does not diminish the authority under 
     section 3510 of title 44, United States Code, of the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget to direct, and of an 
     agency to make, disclosures that are not inconsistent with 
     any applicable law.
       (b) State law.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     abrogate applicable State law regarding the confidentiality 
     of data collected by the States.
       (c) FOIA.--Data or information acquired for exclusively 
     statistical purposes as provided in section 206 is exempt 
     from mandatory disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, pursuant to section 552(b)(3) of such 
     title.
                                  ____


Summary of the Federal Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999 \1\


                                OVERVIEW

       The Bill establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical 
     Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical 
     system, and provides uniform safeguards for the 
     confidentiality of information acquired exclusively for 
     statistical purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Prepared by the staff of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 
     1/19/99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                FINDINGS

       The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical 
     information in the development of national priorities and 
     policies and in the administration of public programs finds 
     that: the decentralized Federal statistical system has 
     limited the usefulness of statistics in defining problems and 
     determining national policies to deal with complex social and 
     economic issues; coordination is necessary to strengthen and 
     improve the quality of statistics, and to reduce duplication 
     and waste; high-quality Federal statistics are essential for 
     sound business and public policy decisions; the challenge of 
     providing high-quality statistics has increased because of 
     the complexity of our economy and society and because of the 
     need for more accurate information; maintaining the quality 
     of Federal statistics requires cooperation between the 
     Federal statistical agencies and respondents to Federal 
     statistical surveys; and Federal statistics may be improved 
     by data sharing among the statistical agencies in a 
     controlled manner that protects the confidentiality promised 
     to respondents.


                         SENSE OF THE CONGRESS

       The bill expresses the Sense of Congress that: A more 
     centralized statistical system is integral to efficiency; 
     Increased efficiency would result in better integration of 
     research methodology, survey design and economics of scale; 
     and The Chief Statistician of the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) must have the authority, personnel and other 
     resources necessary to carry out the duties.


    TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY ESTABLISHMENT

       A commission is established which is to be known as the 
     ``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy.''
       The Commission shall be composed of 16 members: eight to be 
     appointed by the President; four to be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the Majority and Minority Leader; and four to be appointed by 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate in consultation with 
     the Majority and Minority Leader.
       The Commission would have a term of 36 months from the date 
     of enactment.


                        DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

       Within 18 months of its appointment, the Commission shall 
     study and submit to Congress a written report on Federal 
     statistics that makes recommendations on: whether the Federal 
     statistical system could be reorganized by consolidating the 
     statistical functions of agencies that carry out statistical 
     programs; how such consolidation could be done without 
     disruption in the release of statistical products; whether 
     functions of other Federal agencies that carry out 
     statistical programs could be transferred to the Federal 
     Statistical Service; any other issues relating to the 
     reorganization of Federal statistical programs; and possible 
     improvements in procedures for the release of major economic 
     and social indicators.
       If the written report of the Commission contains 
     recommendations on the consolidation of the Federal 
     statistical functions of the United States into a newly 
     established independent Federal agency, designated as the 
     Federal Statistical Service, the report shall contain draft 
     legislation incorporating those recommendations. The 
     Commission should also make recommendations for nominations 
     for the appointment of an Administrator and Deputy 
     Administrator of the Federal Statistical Service.
       During the 36 month term of the Commission, it would also 
     be responsible for conducting comprehensive studies, and 
     submitting reports to Congress on all matters relating to the 
     Federal statistical infrastructure including: an evaluation 
     of the mission of various statistical agencies and the 
     relevance of such missions to current and future needs; a 
     review of information technology and recommendations of 
     appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data; and a 
     comparison of our statistical system with the systems of 
     other nations.


title ii--efficiency and confidentiality of federal statistical systems

       The title reaffirms policies that have been applied to 
     confidential data by statistical agencies for many decades 
     and extends these policies to protect confidentiality in an 
     environment which permits carefully controlled sharing of 
     information exclusively for statistical purposes. It 
     recognizes that the credible protection of confidentiality is 
     crucial to ensuring the level of cooperation which produces 
     accurate and timely responses to statistical inquiries.


                designation of statistical data centers

       The bill designates the BLS, BEA and Bureau of Census 
     National Agricultural Statistics Service, The National Center 
     for Education Statistics, The National Center for Health 
     Statistics, The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics 
     Division of the Energy Information Administration, and The 
     Division of Science Resources Studies as Statistical Data 
     Centers; and assigns general responsibilities to the agencies 
     designated as Statistical Data Centers.


 disclosure of data or information by federal agencies to statistical 
                              data centers

       The bill establishes a uniform confidentiality policy for 
     data acquired for exclusively statistical purposes, by 
     prohibiting disclosures of such data for non-statistical 
     purposes and limiting disclosures for statistical purposes.


     coordination and oversight by office of management and budget

       The bill assigns OMB the responsibility for oversight, 
     reporting, coordination, and review and approval of any 
     implementing regulations.
                                  ____

                                               September 23, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Hon. J. Robert Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Moynihan and Kerry: All of us are former 
     Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers. We write to 
     support the basic objectives and approach of your Bill to 
     establish the Commission to Study the Federal Statistical 
     System.
       The United States possesses a first-class statistical 
     system. All of us have in the past relied heavily upon the 
     availability of reasonably accurate and timely federal 
     statistics on the national economy. Similarly, our 
     professional training leads us to recognize how important a 
     good system of statistical information is for the efficient 
     operations of our complex private economy. But we are also 
     painfully aware that important problems of bureaucratic 
     organization and methodology need to be examined and dealt 
     with if the federal statistical system is to continue to meet 
     essential public and private needs.
       All of us have particular reason to remember the problems 
     which periodically arise under the current system of widely 
     scattered responsibilities. Instead of reflecting a balance 
     among the relative priorities of one statistical collection 
     effort against others, statistical priorities are set in a 
     system within which individual Cabinet Secretaries recommend 
     budgetary tradeoffs between their own substantive programs 
     and the statistical operations which their departments, 
     sometimes by historical accident, are responsible for 
     collecting. Moreover, long range planning of improvements in 
     the federal statistical system to meet the changing nature 
     and needs of the economy is hard to organize in the present 
     framework. The Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Council of Economic Advisers put a lot of effort into trying 
     to coordinate the system, often with success, but often 
     swimming upstream against the system.
       We are also aware, as of course are you, of a number of 
     longstanding substantive and methodological difficulties with 
     which the current system is grappling. These include the 
     increasing importance in the national economy of the service 
     sector, whose output and productivity are especially hard to 
     measure, and the pervasive effect both on measures of 
     national output and income and on the federal budget of the 
     accuracy (or inaccuracy) with which our measures of prices 
     capture changes in the quality of the goods and services we 
     buy.
       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review

[[Page 963]]

     by a highly qualified and bipartisan Commission as provided 
     in your Bill has great promise of showing the way to major 
     improvements.
           Sincerely,
         Professor Michael J. Boskin, Stanford University; Dr. 
           Martin Feldstein, National Bureau of Economic Research; 
           Alan Greenspan; Professor Paul W. McCracken, University 
           of Michigan; Raymond J. Saulnier; Charles L. Schultze, 
           The Brookings Institution; Beryl W. Sprinkel; Herbert 
           Stein, American Enterprise Institute; Professor Murray 
           Weidenbaum, Center for the Study of American Business.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 206. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
provide for improved data collection and evaluations of State 
Children's Health Insurance Programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          the CHIP DATA AND EVALUATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my colleague 
Senator Chafee the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999. 
This legislation would ensure comparable data and an adequate 
evaluation of children's health coverage under the new Children's 
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid.
  In 1997, CHIP was established to provide health coverage for low-
income uninsured children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided $48 
billion over ten years, mostly in the form of a block grant, for states 
to develop children's health insurance programs.
  New York and other states pioneered expanded children's health 
programs well before the enactment of CHIP. With new federal CHIP 
funding, more states are beginning to develop their own programs. To 
date, 48 states have CHIP plans that have been approved by the Health 
Care Financing Administration, with most just beginning to implement 
their programs. We await reports on the effectiveness of their efforts 
to cover the nation's uninsured children.


                           THE NEED FOR DATA

  Implementing their programs is the first challenge before the states. 
For the Federal government, the first challenge clearly will be to 
track the experience of children and of the CHIP programs. We will need 
data to answer some basic questions: Is the number of uninsured 
children being reduced over time, and how effective are the state CHIP 
programs at serving them? What are the best practices and initiatives 
for finding and enrolling the nation's uninsured children?
  We cannot begin to solve a problem until we can measure it. 
Appropriate program data and evaluation contributes to sound policy and 
program design. In 1994, the Welfare Indicators Act of that year--a 
bill that I introduced--became law. The bill directed the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to study the most useful statistics for 
tracking and predicting trends in three means-tested cash and 
nutritional assistance programs. The first of these, of course, was 
ADFC, but the first full Report came two months after AFDC was 
repealed.
  Without data to track its benefits, a program becomes vulnerable to 
reductions in funding. The most recent example is the Social Services 
Block Grant under Title XX of the Social Security Act, which funds a 
wide array of social services ranging from child care to home-delivered 
meals to the elderly. Little summary data on this program has been 
released and not all data is reported in a uniform manner. The welfare 
repeal bill enacted in 1996 reduced the block grant from $2.8 billion 
to $2.38 billion. Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 limited funding 
for that year to $2.29 billion. The highway and mass transit bill 
enacted in 1998 further reduced grants to $1.7 billion by 2001. Most 
recently, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 accelerated that funding limitation 
to $1.9 billion in FY 1999.


          the chip data and evaluation improvement act of 1999

  The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999 calls for a 
detailed Federal CHIP evaluation by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. Current law requires a CHIP report from the Secretary to 
Congress; however, no funds were authorized. This bill would provide 
the necessary funds to conduct an evaluation. The evaluation would 
focus, in part, on outreach and enrollment and on the coordinated the 
existing Medicaid program and the new CHIP program.
  In this era of devolution of social programs, the Federal government 
has an increasingly critical responsibility to ensure adequate and 
comparable national data. This bill would ensure that standardized CHIP 
data is provided. At the very least, the Federal government should 
provide, on a national level, estimates of the number of children below 
the poverty level who are covered by CHIP and by Medicaid.
  The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act would provide funding so 
that existing national surveys would provide reliable and comparable 
state-by-state data. The most fundamental question we, as policy 
makers, will be asking is whether the number of uninsured children is 
going down. With an increasing percent of uninsured, a stable rate 
might be considered a success! This bill would provide additional 
funding to the Census Bureau for its Current Population Survey--a 
national data source of the uninsured--to improve upon the reliability 
of its state-by-state estimates of uninsured children.
  In addition, the proposal would provide funding for another national 
survey to provide reliable state-by-state data on health care access 
and utilization for low-income children. Although this survey may also 
provide data on the number of uninsured, the CPS would be the primary 
source for such figures.
  Also, to develop more efficient and centralized statistics, this bill 
would coordinate a Federal clearinghouse for all data bases and reports 
on children's health. Centralized and complete information is the key 
to sound policy and programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 206

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``CHIP Data and Evaluation 
     Improvement Act of 1999.''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR RELIABLE ANNUAL STATE-BY-STATE ESTIMATES 
                   ON THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Adjustment to Current Population Survey To Include 
     State-by-State Data Relating to Children Without Health 
     Insurance Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make 
     appropriate adjustments to the annual Current Population 
     Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census in order to 
     produce statistically reliable annual State data on the 
     number of low-income children who do not have health 
     insurance coverage, so that real changes in the uninsurance 
     rates of children can reasonably be detected. The Current 
     Population Survey should produce data under this subsection 
     that categorizes such children by family income, age, and 
     race or ethnicity. The adjustments made to produce such data 
     shall include, where appropriate, expanding the sample size 
     used in the State sampling units, expanding the number of 
     sampling units in a State, and an appropriate verification 
     element.
       ``(2) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND 
                   UTILIZATION STATE-BY-STATE DATA.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Collection of Children's Health Care Access and 
     Utilization State-Level Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     National Center for Health Statistics (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `Center'), shall collect data on 
     children's health insurance through the State and Local Area 
     Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) for the 50 States and 
     the District of Columbia. Sufficient data shall be collected 
     so as to provide reliable, annual,

[[Page 964]]

     State-by-State information on the health care access and 
     utilization of children in low-income households, and to 
     allow for comparisons between demographic subgroups 
     categorized with respect to family income, age, and race or 
     ethnicity.
       ``(2) Survey design and content.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary, acting through the Center--
       ``(i) shall obtain input from appropriate sources, 
     including States, in designing the survey and making content 
     decisions; and
       ``(ii) at the request of a State, may collect additional 
     data to assist with a State's evaluation of the program 
     established under this title.
       ``(B) Reimbursement of costs of additional data.--A State 
     shall reimburse the Center for services provided under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(3) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL EVALUATION OF STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by sections 2 and 3, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Federal Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through 
     contracts or interagency agreements, shall conduct an 
     independent evaluation of 10 States with approved child 
     health plans.
       ``(2) Selection of States.--In selecting States for the 
     evaluation conducted under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall chose 10 States that utilize diverse approaches to 
     providing child health assistance, represent various 
     geographic areas (including a mix of rural and urban areas), 
     and contain a significant portion of uncovered children.
       ``(3) Matters included.--In addition to the elements 
     described in subsection (b)(1), the evaluation conducted 
     under this subsection shall include, but is not limited to, 
     the following:
       ``(A) Surveys of the target population (enrollees, 
     disenrollees, and individuals eligible for but not enrolled 
     in the program under this title).
       ``(B) Evaluation of effective and ineffective outreach and 
     enrollment practices with respect to children (for both the 
     program under this title and the medicaid program under title 
     XIX), and identification of enrollment barriers and key 
     elements of effective outreach and enrollment practices, 
     including practices that have successfully enrolled hard-to-
     reach populations such as children who are eligible for 
     medical assistance under title XIX but have not been enrolled 
     previously in the medicaid program under that title.
       ``(C) Evaluation of the extent to which State medicaid 
     eligibility practices and procedures under the medicaid 
     program under title XIX are a barrier to the enrollment of 
     children under that program, and the extent to which 
     coordination (or lack of coordination) between that program 
     and the program under this title affects the enrollment of 
     children under both programs.
       ``(D) An assessment of the effect of cost-sharing on 
     utilization, enrollment, and coverage retention.
       ``(E) Evaluation of disenrollment or other retention 
     issues, such as switching to private coverage, failure to pay 
     premiums, or barriers in the recertification process.
       ``(4) Submission to congress.--Not later than December 31, 
     2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the results of 
     the evaluation conducted under this subsection.
       ``(5) Funding.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the purpose 
     of conducting the evaluation authorized under this 
     subsection. Amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation.''.

     SEC. 5. STANDARDIZED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL 
                   REPORTS.

       Section 2108(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397hh(a)) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively and indenting appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``The State shall--'' and inserting the 
     following
       ``(1) In general.--The State shall--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Standardized reporting requirements.--Each annual 
     report submitted under this subsection shall, in addition to 
     expenditure and other reporting requirements specified by the 
     Secretary, include the following:
       ``(A) Enrollee counts categorized by income (that at least 
     identifies enrollees with income below the poverty line), 
     age, and race or ethnicity, and, if income levels used in 
     State reporting differ from that prescribed by the Secretary, 
     a detailed description of the eligibility methodologies used 
     by the State, including all relevant income disregards, 
     exempted income, and eligibility family units.
       ``(B) The annual percentages of those individuals who 
     sought coverage (as determined by the Secretary) through the 
     screening and enrollment process established under the State 
     program under this title who were--
       ``(i) enrolled in the program under this title;
       ``(ii) enrolled in the medicaid program under title XIX; or
       ``(iii) determined eligible for, but not enrolled in, the 
     program under this title or the medicaid program under title 
     XIX.''.

     SEC. 6. INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT AND GAO REPORT ON ENROLLEES 
                   ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Inspector General Audit and GAO Report.--
       ``(1) Audit.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, and every 
     third fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, through the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, shall audit a sample from among the States 
     described in paragraph (2) in order to--
       ``(A) determine the number, if any, of enrollees under the 
     plan under this title who are eligible for medical assistance 
     under title XIX (other than as an optional targeted low-
     income children under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIV)); and
       ``(B) assess the progress made in reducing the number of 
     targeted uncovered low-income children relative to the goals 
     established in the State child health plan, as reported to 
     the Secretary in accordance with subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) State described.--A State described in this paragraph 
     is a State with an approved State child health plan under 
     this title that does not, as part of such plan, provide 
     health benefits coverage under the State's medicaid program 
     under title XIX.
       ``(3) Monitoring and report from gao.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall monitor the audits 
     conducted under this subsection and, not later than March 1 
     of each fiscal year after a fiscal year in which an audit is 
     conducted under this subsection, shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the results of the audit conducted during the 
     prior fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 7. COORDINATION OF DATA COLLECTION WITH DATA 
                   REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MATERNAL AND CHILD 
                   HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

       Subparagraphs (C)(ii) and (D)(ii) of section 506(a)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 706(a)(2)) are each 
     amended by inserting ``or the State plan under title XXI'' 
     after ``title XIX''.

     SEC. 8. COORDINATION OF DATA SURVEYS AND REPORTS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, shall 
     establish a clearinghouse for the consolidation and 
     coordination of all Federal data bases and reports regarding 
     children's health.

    Summary of the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999


                                purpose

       In 1997, 10.7 million children were uninsured. The new 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and existing 
     state Medicaid programs are intended to provide coverage for 
     low-income children. The crucial question is whether the 
     number of uninsured children has been reduced. Improved 
     state-specific data is needed to provide that information. In 
     addition, the Federal government should evaluate the 
     effectiveness of these programs in finding and enrolling 
     children in health insurance.


                                proposal

       State-by-state Uninsured Counts and Children's Health Care 
     Access and Utilization. (1) Provide funds ($10 million 
     annually) to the Census Bureau to make appropriate 
     adjustments to the Current Population Survey (CPS) so that 
     the CPS can provide reliable state-by-state data on uninsured 
     children. (2) Provide funds ($9 million annually) to the 
     National Center for Health Statistics to conduct the 
     Children's Health portion of the State and Local Area 
     Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) in order to produce 
     reliable state-by-state date on the health care access and 
     utilization for low-income children covered by various 
     insurance programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.
       Federal Evaluation. With funding ($10 million), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit to 
     Congress a Federal evaluation report that would include 10 
     states representing varying geographic, rural/urban, with 
     various program designs. The evaluation would include more 
     specific and comparable evaluation elements than are already 
     included under Title XXI, such as including surveys of the 
     target population (enrollees and other eligibles). The study 
     would evaluate outreach and enrollment practices (for both 
     CHIP and Medicaid), identify barriers to enrollment, assess 
     states' Medicaid and CHIP program coordination, assess the 
     effect of cost sharing on enrollment and coverage retention, 
     and identify the reasons for disenrollment/retention.
       Standardized Reporting. States would submit standardized 
     data to the Secretary, including enrollee counts 
     disaggregated by income (below 100%), race/ethnicity, and 
     age. If

[[Page 965]]

     income could not be submitted in a standard form, the state 
     would submit a detailed description of eligibility 
     methodologies that outline relevant income disregards. States 
     would also submit percentages of individuals screened that 
     are enrolled in CHIP and in Medicaid, and the percent 
     screened eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.
       Administrative Spending Reports for Title XXI. States would 
     submit standardized spending reports for the following 
     administrative costs: data systems, outreach efforts and 
     program operation (eligibility/enrollment, etc.)
       Coordinate CHIP Data with Title V Data Requirements. 
     Existing reporting requirements for the Maternal and Child 
     Health Block Grant provide data based on children's health 
     insurance, including Medicaid. This bill would include the 
     CHIP program in its reporting.
       IG Audit and GAO Report. The Inspector General for the 
     Department of Health and Human Services would audit CHIP 
     enrollee data to identify children who are actually eligible 
     for Medicaid. The General Accounting Office will report the 
     results to Congress.
       Coordination of all Children Data and Reports. The 
     Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation in the 
     Department of Health and Human Services would consolidate all 
     federal data base information and reports on children's 
     health in a clearinghouse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 207. A bill to amend title V of the Social Security Act to 
increase the authorization of appropriations for the maternal and child 
health services block grant and to promote integrated physical and 
specialized mental health services for children and adolescents; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          the maternal child health block grant authorization

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in November 1998, Essence Magazine 
reported that between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate among Black males 
ages 10 to 19 more than doubled. According to a Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) study, suicide is now the third leading 
cause of death among all youth aged 15-19, and the fourth leading cause 
of death among children aged 10-14 nationally. In many states the 
problem is even worse. For example, suicide is the number one killer of 
adolescents 15-19 years old in Alaska and of children 10 to 14 years 
old in Oregon. The majority of children and adolescents at risk for 
suicidal behavior are not seen by mental health specialists; therefore, 
primary health care providers and others in regular contact with young 
people must be available to respond to these troubled youngsters.
  The legislation introduced today proposes to focus on seriously 
emotionally disabled children and adolescents and their families. 
Adolescents with special health needs, those experiencing chronic 
physical, developmental, behavioral, or serious emotional problems and 
requiring additional health and related services such as assistance in 
moving from pediatric to adult health care, to post-secondary education 
and employment will be helped by this bill. The Maternal and Child 
Health Bureau (MCHB) located within the Department of Health and Human 
Services is best situated to implement this program.
  The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) has roots that go back 
more than 80 years--to the creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912. 
This was the first government agency to act as an advocate for mothers, 
children, and adolescents. The Maternal and Child Health Services Block 
Grant, the bureau's principle statutory responsibility, was originally 
enacted in 1935 as Title V of the Social Security Act. The MCHB is 
charged with providing leadership, partnership, and resources to 
advance the health of all mothers, infants, children, and adolescents--
including families with low income, those with diverse racial and 
ethnic heritages, those with special health care needs, and those 
living in rural or isolated areas without access to care.
  Title V encompasses a program of grants to the states and two federal 
discretionary grant programs: Special Projects of Regional and National 
Significance (SPRANS) and Community Integrated Service Systems (CISS). 
Funds are used to support research, training, newborn screening, 
maternal and child health improvements. CISS is only funded when the 
Title V annual appropriation exceeds $600 million) which occurred for 
the first time in 1992. The CISS program provides direct support to 
public and private groups committed to building integrated health 
delivery systems that provide comprehensive services in local 
communities. Most importantly, the State Title V programs are required 
to coordinate with other related Federal health, education, and social 
service programs. For example, MCH programs have provided the technical 
expertise and the service delivery systems to ensure that expanded 
Medicaid eligibility and benefits result in improved access to services 
and improved health status of pregnant women and children.
  The federal Title V mandate places a unique responsibility on state 
MCH agencies to assure that children with special health care needs are 
identified and receive the care they need. State programs are required 
to develop family-centered, community-based, coordinated care systems 
for children with special health care needs. Services for these 
children are most often provided through specialty clinics and through 
purchase of private office or hospital-based outpatient and inpatient 
diagnostic, treatment, and follow up services. Three-fourths of the 
State MCH programs have supported local ``one-stop shopping'' models 
integrating access to Title V, Medicaid, the WIC food program, and 
other health or social services at one site. In New York, MCH helps to 
fund or operate regional pediatric resource centers for children with 
special needs.
  These centers offer multidisciplinary team care, family support and 
service coordination and they are beginning to integrate this approach 
into private practice settings where children are now receiving their 
specialty medical care. Yet, even though these programs have had 
encouraging results, most states' health care systems are unable to 
address all the needs of these vulnerable children--and adolescent 
youth with special health needs are particularly at risk. And that is 
why this legislation is so important. Under current law, Title V is 
permanently authorized at $705 million. It was last extended in FY 1993 
to conform to funding levels that went beyond the prior authorization 
level. This legislation would increase the current MCH Block Grant 
authorization level from $705 million to $840 million in FY 2000.
  Health care information and education for families with special 
health care needs is critical to the success of any integrated physical 
and mental health service program. The MCHB has begun family support 
efforts for families of children with special health care needs, and 
has a promising pilot program to build a national network of statewide 
family-run support services in FY 1999. The additional funding in this 
bill is intended to expand upon these family support efforts. With 
increased funding for the MCH Block Grant, SPRANS and CISS programs, 
the MCH Bureau will be well-positioned to collaborate successfully with 
other Federal and State partners to address this new project focus.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 207

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH 
                   SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 
     501(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``$705,000,000 for fiscal year 1994'' and inserting 
     ``$840,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''.
       (b) Promotion of Integrated Physical and Specialized Mental 
     Health Services.--Section 501(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and for'' and inserting ``for''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and for the promotion of integrated 
     physical and specialized mental health services for children 
     and adolescents'' before the semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 966]]

       ``(G) integrated physical and specialized mental health 
     services for children and adolescents.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 208. A bill to enhance family life; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the enhancing family life act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing 
Family Life Act of 1999, a bill inspired by an extraordinary set of 
proposals by one of our nation's most eminent social scientists, 
Professor James Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the honor of 
hearing Professor Wilson--who is an old and dear friend--deliver the 
Francis Boyer Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The 
Boyer Lecture is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has 
``made notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved 
public policy and social welfare.'' Previous Boyer lecturers have 
included Irving Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry Kissinger. In his 
lecture, Professor Wilson argued that ``two nations'' now exist within 
the United States. He said:

       In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an 
     education, a job, a spouse, and a home kept separate from 
     crime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the 
     other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a 
     neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few committed 
     fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for self-
     protection and valuable for self-advancement.

  Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American 
underclass, the problems of which have been the focus of decades of 
unsuccessful welfare reform and crime control efforts. We have tried a 
great many ``solutions,'' as Professor Wilson notes:

       Congress has devised community action, built public 
     housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps, given 
     federal funds to low-income schools, supported job training, 
     and provided cash grants to working families.

  Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains 
why: ``[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergence of two 
nations.'' He notes that as our families become weaker--as more and 
more American children are born outside of marriage and raised by one, 
not two, parents--the foundation of our society becomes weaker. This 
deterioration helps to explain why, as reported by the Census Bureau 
today, the poverty rate for American children is almost twice that for 
adults aged 18 to 64 (19.9 percent for children versus 10.9 percent for 
adults). And it grows increasingly difficult for government to address 
the problems of that ``second nation.'' Professor Wilson even quotes 
the Senator from New York to this effect: ``If you expect a government 
program to change families, you know more about government than I do.''
  Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about 
what might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common 
sense, he urged in the Boyer Lecture that we refocus our attention on 
the vital period of early childhood. I was so impressed with his 
Lecture that afterward I set about writing a bill to put his 
recommendations into effect.
  The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 contains four key elements, all 
of which are related to families. First, it supports ``second change'' 
maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where 
young women would live with their children under strict adult 
supervision and have the support necessary to become productive members 
of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to create such homes 
or expand existing ones.
  Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children 
in foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many 
children drift in foster care; we should do more to find them permanent 
homes. The bill also encourages states to experiment with ``per 
capita'' approaches to finding these permanent homes for foster 
children, a strategy Kansas has used with success.
  Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs. 
Recent research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first 
few years of a child's life. States would have great flexibility in the 
use of these funds; for example, the money could be used for pre-school 
programs for poor children or home visits of parents of young children. 
It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose.
  Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program 
to enable more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who 
temporarily leaves the workforce to raise a child would be eligible for 
an educational grant, similar to the Pell Grant, to help parent enter, 
or re- enter, the labor market with skills and credentials necessary 
for success in today's economy once the child is older.
  Mr. President, this bill is a starting point. It is what Professor 
James Q. Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would 
certainly welcome the comments of others. I first introduced this 
legislation last September and have received several helpful 
suggestions. I look forward to further such conversations and comments.
  And I would commend to the attention of Senators and other interested 
persons the full text of Professor Wilson's lecture ``Two Nations,'' 
which is available from my office or from the American Enterprise 
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation 
and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 208

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing 
     Family Life Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of Contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                    TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 101. Second chance homes.
Sec. 102. Adoption promotion.
Sec. 103. Early childhood development.

                        TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

Sec. 201. Parent grants.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The family is the foundation of public life.
       (2) The proportion of illegitimate births to teenagers has 
     increased astronomically from 13 percent of such births in 
     1950 to 76 percent of such births in 1996.
       (3) Children in one-parent families are more at risk for 
     many types of anti-social behavior.
       (4) The future of children is crucially determined during 
     the first few years of life.
                    TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

     SEC. 101. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

       (a) In General.--Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2008. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

       ``(a) Entitlement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to any payment under 
     sections 2002 and 2007, beginning with fiscal year 2000, each 
     State shall be entitled to funds under this section for each 
     fiscal year for the establishment, operation, and support of 
     second chance homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 
     and their children.
       ``(2) Payment to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State shall be entitled to payment 
     under this section for each fiscal year in an amount equal to 
     its allotment (determined in accordance with subsection (b)) 
     for such fiscal year, to be used by such State for the 
     purposes set forth in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Transfers of funds.--The Secretary shall make 
     payments in accordance with section 6503 of title 31, United 
     States Code, to each State from its allotment for use under 
     this section.
       ``(C) Use.--Payments to a State from its allotment for any 
     fiscal year must be expended by the State in such fiscal year 
     or in the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(D) Technical assistance.--A State may use a portion of 
     the amounts described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of 
     purchasing technical assistance from public or private 
     entities if the State determines that such assistance is 
     required in developing, implementing, or administering the 
     program funded under this section.
       ``(3) Second chance homes.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `second chance homes' means an entity that provides 
     custodial parents under the age of 19 and their children with 
     a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which such 
     parents would be required to learn parenting skills, 
     including child development, family budgeting, health and 
     nutrition, and other skills to promote their long-term 
     economic independence and the well-being of their children. A 
     second chance home may also serve

[[Page 967]]

     as a network center for other supportive services that might 
     be available in the community.
       ``(b) Allotment.--
       ``(1) Certain jurisdictions.--The allotment for any fiscal 
     year to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be an 
     amount that bears the same ratio to the amount specified 
     under paragraph (3) as the allotment that the jurisdiction 
     receives under section 2003(a) for the fiscal year bears to 
     the total amount specified for such fiscal year under section 
     2003(c).
       ``(2) Other states.--The allotment for any fiscal year for 
     each State other than Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to--
       ``(A) the amount specified under paragraph (3); reduced by
       ``(B) the total amount allotted for that fiscal year under 
     paragraph (1),
     as the allotment that the State receives under section 
     2003(b) for the fiscal year bears to the total amount 
     specified for such fiscal year under section 2003(c).
       ``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified for purposes 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be $40,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(c) Local Involvement.--Each State shall seek local 
     involvement from the community in any area in which a second 
     chance home receiving funds pursuant to this section is to be 
     established. In determining criteria for targeting funds 
     received under this section, each State shall evaluate the 
     community's commitment to the establishment and planning of 
     the home.
       ``(d) Limitations on the Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     funds made available under this section may not be used by 
     the State, or any other person with which the State makes 
     arrangements to carry out the purposes of this section, for 
     the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase, 
     construction, or permanent improvement (other than minor 
     remodeling) of any building or other facility.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation 
     contained in paragraph (1) upon the State's request for such 
     a waiver if the Secretary finds that the request describes 
     extraordinary circumstances to justify the waiver and that 
     permitting the waiver will contribute to the State's ability 
     to carry out the purposes of this section.
       ``(e) Treatment of Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe may apply to the 
     Secretary to establish, operate, and support adult-supervised 
     group homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 and 
     their children in accordance with an application procedure to 
     be determined by the Secretary. Except as otherwise provided 
     in this subsection, the provisions of this section shall 
     apply to Indian tribes receiving funds under this subsection 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as the other 
     provisions of this section apply to States.
       ``(2) Allotment.--If the Secretary approves an Indian 
     tribe's application, the Secretary shall allot to such tribe 
     for a fiscal year an amount which the Secretary determines is 
     the Indian tribe's fair and equitable share of the amount 
     specified under paragraph (3) for all Indian tribes with 
     applications approved under this subsection (based on 
     allotment factors to be determined by the Secretary). The 
     Secretary shall determine a minimum allotment amount for all 
     Indian tribes with applications approved under this 
     subsection. Each Indian tribe with an application approved 
     under this subsection shall be entitled to such minimum 
     allotment.
       ``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified under this 
     paragraph for all Indian tribes with applications approved 
     under this subsection is $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(4) Indian tribe defined.--In this section, the term 
     `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 
     or other organized group or community, including any Alaska 
     Native entity which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to Indian 
     tribes because of their status as Indians.
       ``(f) Research and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount appropriated to carry out 
     this section for each fiscal year shall be increased by 2 
     percent and the Secretary shall reserve an amount equal to 
     that increase to pay for the costs of conducting, through 
     grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research and 
     evaluation projects regarding the second chance homes funded 
     under this section. In conducting such projects, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to projects that are undertaken 
     by independent and impartial organizations.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects 
     conducted in accordance with this subsection.''.
       (b) Recommendations on Use of Government Surplus 
     Property.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration, shall 
     submit recommendations to Congress on the extent to which 
     surplus properties of the United States Government may be 
     used for the establishment of second chance homes receiving 
     funds under section 2008 of the Social Security Act, as added 
     by subsection (a).

     SEC. 102. ADOPTION PROMOTION.

       (a) Adoption of Children With Special Needs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child 
     meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child--
       ``(i) prior to termination of parental rights and the 
     initiation of adoption proceedings was in the care of a 
     public or licensed private child care agency or Indian tribal 
     organization either pursuant to a voluntary placement 
     agreement (provided the child was in care for not more than 
     180 days) or as a result of a judicial determination to the 
     effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the 
     safety and welfare of such child, or was residing in a foster 
     family home or child care institution with the child's minor 
     parent (either pursuant to such a voluntary placement 
     agreement or as a result of such a judicial determination); 
     and
       ``(ii) has been determined by the State pursuant to 
     subsection (c) to be a child with special needs, which needs 
     shall be considered by the State, together with the 
     circumstances of the adopting parents, in determining the 
     amount of any payments to be made to the adopting parents.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except as provided in paragraph (7), a child who is not a 
     citizen or resident of the United States and who meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as meeting 
     the requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).
       ``(C) A child who meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A), who was determined eligible for adoption assistance 
     payments under this part with respect to a prior adoption (or 
     who would have been determined eligible for such payments had 
     the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 been in effect at 
     the time that such determination would have been made), and 
     who is available for adoption because the prior adoption has 
     been dissolved and the parental rights of the adoptive 
     parents have been terminated or because the child's adoptive 
     parents have died, shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).''.
       (2) Exception.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, no payment may be made to parents with respect to 
     any child that--
       ``(i) would be considered a child with special needs under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United States; 
     and
       ``(iii) was adopted outside of the United States or was 
     brought into the United States for the purpose of being 
     adopted.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as 
     prohibiting payments under this part for a child described in 
     subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care subsequent to 
     the failure, as determined by the State, of the initial 
     adoption of such child by the parents described in such 
     subparagraph.''.
       (3) Requirement for use of state savings.--Section 473(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the amount of 
     savings (if any) in State expenditures under this part 
     resulting from the application of paragraph (2) on and after 
     the effective date of the amendment to such paragraph made by 
     section 4(a) of the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 to 
     provide to children or families any service (including post-
     adoption services) that may be provided under this part or 
     part B.''.
       (b) Per Capita Child Welfare Demonstration Projects.--
     Section 1130(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Reservation.--Of the 10 demonstration projects 
     authorized under this subsection for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002, the Secretary, upon receipt of an 
     appropriate application, shall approve at least 3 
     demonstration projects in each of such fiscal years that are 
     designed to test a per capita approach for the successful 
     resolution of a foster care placement under which a private 
     entity contracts for a fixed amount to either restore a child 
     in foster care to the child's parent or parents or locate an 
     adoptive placement for the child.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 103. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.

       Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 968]]



                ``PART F--ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

     ``SEC. 480. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(2) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       ``(3) State board.--The term `State board' means a State 
     Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section 
     481(c).
       ``(4) Young child.--The term `young child' means an 
     individual from birth through age 5.
       ``(5) Young child assistance activities.--The term `young 
     child assistance activities' means the activities described 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 482(b).

     ``SEC. 481. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments 
     under subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the 
     Federal share of the cost of enabling the States to make 
     grants to local collaboratives under section 482 for young 
     child assistance activities.
       ``(b) Allotment.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 484 for each fiscal year and not reserved under 
     subsection (i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible 
     State an amount that bears the same relationship to such 
     funds as the total number of young children in poverty in the 
     State bears to the total number of young children in poverty 
     in all eligible States.
       ``(2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term 
     `young child in poverty' means an individual who--
       ``(A) is a young child; and
       ``(B) is a member of a family with an income below the 
     poverty line.
       ``(c) State Boards.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to 
     obtain an allotment under this part, the chief executive 
     officer of the State shall establish, or designate an entity 
     to serve as, a State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which 
     shall receive the allotment and make the grants described in 
     section 482.
       ``(2) Established board.--A State board established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of the chief executive officer of 
     the State and members appointed by such chief executive 
     officer, including--
       ``(A) representatives of all State agencies primarily 
     providing services to young children in the State;
       ``(B) representatives of business in the State;
       ``(C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in 
     the State;
       ``(D) parents of young children in the State;
       ``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
     income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the 
     State;
       ``(F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that 
     represent the interests of young children in poverty, as 
     defined in subsection (b), in the State;
       ``(G) representatives of organizations providing services 
     to young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), 
     providing services through a family resource center, 
     providing home visits, or providing health care services, in 
     the State; and
       ``(H) representatives of local educational agencies.
       ``(3) Designated board.--The chief executive officer of the 
     State may designate an entity to serve as the State board 
     under paragraph (1) if the entity includes the chief 
     executive officer of the State and the members described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Designated state agency.--The chief executive officer 
     of the State shall designate a State agency that has a 
     representative on the State board to provide administrative 
     oversight concerning the use of funds made available under 
     this part and ensure accountability for the funds.
       ``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under this part, a State board shall annually submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       ``(1) sufficient information about the entity established 
     or designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State 
     board to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity 
     complies with the requirements of such subsection;
       ``(2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young 
     child assistance activities;
       ``(3) an assurance that the State board will provide such 
     information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on 
     the amount of State and local public funds expended in the 
     State to provide services for young children; and
       ``(4) an assurance that the State board shall annually 
     compile and submit to the Secretary information from the 
     reports referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(iii) that 
     describes the results referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(i).
       ``(e) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described 
     in subsection (a) shall be--
       ``(A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 
     1905(b)) is not less than 50 percent but is less than 60 
     percent;
       ``(B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such 
     percentage is not less than 60 percent but is less than 70 
     percent; and
       ``(C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(2) State share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining 
     share (referred to in this paragraph as the `State share') of 
     the cost described in subsection (a).
       ``(B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
       ``(C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share 
     of the cost from State or local sources, or through donations 
     from private entities.
       ``(f) State Administrative Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent 
     of the funds made available through an allotment made under 
     this part to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of 
     State administrative costs related to carrying out this part.
       ``(2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a 
     waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver 
     if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the 
     State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that 
     receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of 
     the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the 
     State administrative costs.
       ``(g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the 
     activities of States that receive allotments under this part 
     to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part, 
     including compliance with the State plans.
       ``(h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State that has received an allotment under this part is not 
     complying with a requirement of this part, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve 
     the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
       ``(2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the second determination 
     of noncompliance;
       ``(3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment 
     made to the State under this section, for the third 
     determination of noncompliance; or
       ``(4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive 
     allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent 
     determination of noncompliance.
       ``(i) Reservation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Technical assistance.--From the funds appropriated 
     under section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the 
     costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall 
     use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities to provide technical assistance to local 
     collaboratives that receive grants under section 482 relating 
     to the functions of the local collaboratives under this part.
       ``(2) Research and evaluation.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 
     2 percent of the funds to pay for the costs of conducting, 
     through grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research 
     and evaluation projects regarding the young child assistance 
     activities funded with amounts made available in accordance 
     with the requirements of this part. In conducting such 
     projects, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that 
     are undertaken by independent and impartial organizations.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to Congress on the research and evaluation projects conducted 
     in accordance with this paragraph.

     ``SEC. 482. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment 
     under section 481 shall use the funds made available through 
     the allotment, and the State contribution made under section 
     481(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the 
     cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local 
     collaboratives to carry out young child assistance 
     activities.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a 
     grant made under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall use funds made available through the grant to 
     provide, in a community, activities that consist of education 
     and supportive services, such as--
       ``(A) home visits for parents of young children;
       ``(B) services provided through community-based family 
     resource centers for such parents; and
       ``(C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting 
     education for such parents to early childhood learning 
     services for young children; and

[[Page 969]]

       ``(2) may use funds made available through the grant--
       ``(A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist 
     of--
       ``(i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of 
     child care for young children and expand the supply of high 
     quality child care services for young children;
       ``(ii) health care services for young children, including 
     increasing the level of immunization for young children in 
     the community, providing preventive health care screening and 
     education, and expanding health care services in schools, 
     child care facilities, clinics in public housing projects (as 
     defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision 
     clinics;
       ``(iii) services for children with disabilities who are 
     young children; and
       ``(iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing 
     educational and other support services to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community, to be carried 
     out during extended hours when appropriate; and
       ``(B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the 
     administrator described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance 
     with such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       ``(c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this 
     section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of 
     more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated 
     success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
       ``(d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for a community, a local 
     collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
       ``(1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort, 
     young child assistance activities to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       ``(2) includes--
       ``(A) all public agencies primarily providing services to 
     young children in the community;
       ``(B) businesses in the community;
       ``(C) representatives of the local government for the 
     county or other political subdivision in which the community 
     is located;
       ``(D) parents of young children in the community;
       ``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
     income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the 
     community;
       ``(F) community-based organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental 
     health, or family support services; and
       ``(G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and 
     that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code.
       ``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local collaborative shall submit an 
     application to the State board at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the State board may 
     require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       ``(1) sufficient information about the entity described in 
     subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine 
     whether the entity complies with the requirements of such 
     subsection; and
       ``(2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities in the community, including information 
     indicating--
       ``(A) the young child assistance activities available in 
     the community, as of the date of submission of the plan, 
     including information on efforts to coordinate the 
     activities;
       ``(B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of 
     young children, in the community for young child assistance 
     activities;
       ``(C) the manner in which funds made available through the 
     grant will be used--
       ``(i) to meet the needs, including expanding and 
     strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     and establishing additional young child assistance 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) to improve results for young children in the 
     community;
       ``(D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60 
     percent of the funds made available through the grant to 
     provide young child assistance activities to young children 
     and parents described in subsection (f);
       ``(E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will 
     use to ensure that--
       ``(i) each entity carrying out young child assistance 
     activities through the collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities with such activities carried out by other entities 
     through the collaborative; and
       ``(ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities of the local collaborative with--

       ``(I) other services provided to young children, and the 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       ``(II) the activities of other local collaboratives serving 
     young children and families in the community, if any; and

       ``(F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such 
     intervals as the State board may require, submit information 
     to the State board to enable the State board to carry out 
     monitoring under section 481(g), including the manner in 
     which the collaborative will--
       ``(i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative 
     for young children and parents of young children through 
     activities carried out through the grant;
       ``(ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively 
     delivered to young children and the parents of young 
     children; and
       ``(iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual 
     reports describing the results;
       ``(3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply 
     with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of 
     paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
       ``(4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire 
     an administrator to oversee the provision of the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
       ``(f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section, 
     the State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the 
     funds made available through each grant are used to provide 
     the young child assistance activities to young children (and 
     parents of young children) who reside in school districts in 
     which half or more of the students receive free or reduced 
     price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.).
       ``(g) Local Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute 
     a percentage (referred to in this subsection as the `local 
     share') of the cost of carrying out the young child 
     assistance activities.
       ``(2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     specify the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
       ``(4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for 
     the local share of the cost through donations from private 
     entities.
       ``(5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement 
     of paragraph (1) for poor rural and urban areas, as defined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the 
     activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under 
     this part to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     part.

     ``SEC. 483. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``Funds appropriated under this part shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to provide services for young children.

     ``SEC. 484. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part--
       ``(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004; and
       ``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 
     and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
                        TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

     SEC. 201. PARENT GRANTS.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide 
     parents with grants for career development and retraining 
     after a period of child rearing.
       (b) Program Authority and Method of Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (f), the Secretary of Education (in this section referred to 
     as the ``Secretary'') may pay to each eligible institution 
     such sums as may be necessary to pay to each qualifying 
     parent for each academic year that the qualifying parent is 
     in attendance at an institution of higher education, a parent 
     grant, in an amount determined in accordance with subsection 
     (c), for each child for which the qualifying parent remains 
     outside the labor force.
       (2) Qualifying parent.--In this section, the term 
     ``qualifying parent'' means an individual who--
       (A) is the custodial parent of a child under the age of 6;
       (B) has no earned income as defined in section 32(c)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (C) is not receiving assistance under a State program 
     funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or supplemental security income 
     benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
       (3) Distribution.--Funds under this section shall be 
     disbursed and made available to qualifying parents in the 
     same manner as Federal Pell Grants are disbursed and made 
     available to institutions of higher education and students 
     under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), except that in the 
     case of a parent grant awarded to a qualifying parent for 
     expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or 
     its recognized equivalent, the Secretary shall make the grant 
     funds available to the qualifying parent.
       (c) Amount.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of a 
     parent grant for which a qualifying parent is eligible under 
     this section for an academic year is equal to--
       (A) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual 
     income of $50,000 or less, the maximum amount of the Federal 
     Pell Grant awarded under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 for such year; and

[[Page 970]]

       (B) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual 
     income of more than $50,000 but not more than $75,000, \1/2\ 
     of the maximum amount of the Federal Pell Grant so awarded 
     for such year.
       (2) Special rules.--
       (A) Calendar year awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible 
     for a parent grant under this section for each complete 
     calendar year the parent is outside the labor force, except 
     that the Secretary shall prorate the amount for which the 
     qualifying parent is eligible for the first year in which a 
     child is born if the qualifying parent is outside the labor 
     force for at least 4 months of the calendar year in which the 
     child is born.
       (B) Simultaneous awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible 
     for a parent grant simultaneously for each child for which 
     the parent remains outside the labor force.
       (C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award a qualifying 
     parent a parent grant for any period the parent remains 
     outside the labor force to pursue education with a parent 
     grant awarded under this section.
       (d) Uses.--
       (1) In general.--A parent grant awarded under this 
     section--
       (A) shall be used not later than 15 years after the year 
     for which the grant is awarded; and
       (B) shall be used to pay--
       (i) the cost of attendance (as determined in accordance 
     with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087ll)) at an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 481 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088)); or
       (ii) for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent.
       (2) Aggregation of awards.--A qualifying parent may 
     aggregate parent grants awarded for more than 1 year or more 
     than 1 child for use in a single academic year.
       (3) Rollover.--A qualifying parent may use any grant funds 
     awarded for an academic year that are not used in the 
     academic year, for use in a subsequent academic year, subject 
     to paragraph (1)(A).
       (e) Research and Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated to carry out 
     this section for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve 2 percent of such amounts to pay for the costs of 
     conducting, through grant, contract, or interagency 
     agreement, research and evaluation projects regarding the 
     parent grants awarded in accordance with the requirements of 
     this section. In conducting such projects, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to projects that are undertaken by 
     independent and impartial organizations.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects 
     conducted in accordance with this subsection.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year.
                                  ____


 The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

 (Based on the 1997 Francis Boyer Lecture by Professor James Q. Wilson)


                         Section 1. Short Title

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing Family Life Act of 
     1999.''


                          Section 2. Findings

       The Congressional findings support the importance of 
     families in society and social policy.


                    Title I--Assistance for Children

                  Section 101. ``Second Chance Homes''

       The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or 
     expand ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage 
     mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with their 
     children under adult supervision and strict rules while 
     learning good parenting skills.


                    Section 102. Adoption Promotion

       The bill would expand the number of ``special needs'' 
     children in foster care for which federal adoption subsidies 
     are available. It ``de-links'' eligibility for these 
     subsidies from the income level of the foster child's 
     biological parents. (Under current law, a foster child 
     determined to have special needs only qualifies for a federal 
     adoption subsidy if the child's birth parents are welfare-
     eligible.) The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the 
     particular emotional and physical challenges of troubled 
     children and so they can provide the children permanent 
     homes.
       In addition, last year's ``Adoption and Safe Families Act'' 
     authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each 
     year. The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to 
     states wishing to test ``per capita'' approaches to finding 
     permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has 
     done. Under a per capita approach, states or localities 
     contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster 
     children with their biological families or place them with 
     adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a non-profit 
     social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather 
     than unlimited reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle 
     the child in a permanent home more quickly.


                Section 103. Early Childhood Development

       The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for 
     collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent 
     research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest 
     years in a child's life in the child's intellectual and 
     emotional development. States could use the funds for home 
     visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality child 
     care, and preventive health services. States would have great 
     flexibility in deciding which services to provide.


                     Section II--``Parent Grants''

       The bill would create a new education assistance program to 
     provide grants to parents who choose to remain with young 
     children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the 
     training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance 
     careers after a period of time outside the labor force. A 
     custodial parent with children under the age of six and no 
     earned income, welfare, or SSI receipt would be eligible to 
     receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant 
     available for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The 
     benefit--to be called a ``Parent Grant''--could only be used 
     for expenses associated with post-secondary education or 
     completion of high school. Parents could accumulate grants 
     (one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be 
     required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for 
     which the grant was earned. Eligibility would be subjected to 
     income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on 
     the basis of cost estimates). The program would be 
     administered by the Education Department, in parallel with 
     Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 209. A bill to prohibit States from imposing a family cap under 
the program of temporary assistance to needy families; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                 legislation to prohibit the family cap

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
prohibit States from imposing the so-called ``family cap'' as part of 
their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. The 
``family cap'' is a policy under which a child born to a poor family on 
assistance is simply ignored when calculating the family's benefit--as 
if the child, this new infant, did not exist and had no needs. More 
than 20 states have imposed some version of this cap as part of their 
TANF programs.
  As I have said in previous debate on this subject, these children 
have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into 
the world. We have an elemental responsibility to them. And so states 
ought not deny benefits to these children because of the actions of 
their parents.
  We recently received the results of an evaluation of welfare reform 
in New Jersey, the first state to impose such a ``family cap.'' As it 
is only one study, one should be cautious about generalizing from the 
results. Still, it was striking to note according to the study, that 
over the four-year observation period ``[m]embers of the experimental 
group [i.e. those under a family cap] also experienced an abortion rate 
that was 14 percent higher than the control group [i.e. those not under 
a cap].'' Is that really the outcome that authors of the 1996 welfare 
law intended? Further, the evaluation notes of the New Jersey welfare 
reform effort, of which the cap as a component, that ``[w]e found no 
evidence that [the program] had any systemic positive impact on 
employment, employment stability, or earnings among AFDC recipients.'' 
That is, it did little to move welfare recipients to work, the 
ostensible objective of the 1996 welfare law.
  And so, with this bit of evidence to reinforce my original position, 
I propose today to end the family cap, and I ask unanimous consent that 
a summary of the legislation and its full text be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 209

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF A FAMILY CAP UNDER 
                   THE TANF PROGRAM.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Ban on family cap.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 may not, under the State program funded 
     under this part, deny assistance to a family in respect of an 
     individual because the individual was born after the family 
     became eligible for or began receiving assistance under the 
     program.''.

[[Page 971]]

       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) No tanf funds for program with family cap.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a State 
     that violates section 408(a)(12) during a fiscal year shall 
     remit to the Secretary all funds paid to the State under this 
     part for the fiscal year, and no payment shall be made under 
     this part to a State that has in effect a program that would 
     be funded under this part but for a law, regulation, or 
     policy that is inconsistent with such section.''.
                                  ____


  Family Cap Prohibition Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

     I. Prohibition on Imposition of a Family Cap
       The bill prohibits a state from imposing a ``family cap'' 
     as part of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
     program. Under the 1996 welfare law states are permitted to 
     deny additional assistance to families on TANF when another 
     child is born to that family and 23 states have done so in 
     some way. This policy, known as the ``family cap,'' would be 
     prohibited.
     II. Penalty
       A state found in violation of this policy would lose TANF 
     funding.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 210. A bill to establish a medical education trust fund, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                medical education trust fund act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would 
establish a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 144 
accredited medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education 
teaching institutions. These institutions are national treasures; they 
are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a 
precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care 
delivery system in the United States. Explicit and dedicated funding 
for these institutions, which this legislation will provide, will 
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the 
quality of its health care system.
  This legislation requires that the public sector, through the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an 
assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and 
fair financial support.
  My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the 
Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was 
Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked 
Dr. Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer 
Center in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on 
health care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school 
deans together one morning in New York.
  Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the 
University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an 
instant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place 
where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this 
be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state 
in the growth of competitive health care markets, in which managed care 
organizations try to deliver services at lower costs. In this 
environment, HMOs and the like do not send patients to teaching 
hospitals, absent which you cannot have a medical school.
  We are in the midst of a great era of discovery in medical science. 
It is certainly not a time to close medical schools. This great era of 
medical discovery is occurring right here in the United States, not in 
Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in 
New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late 
1930s. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off, 
perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point 
sixty years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought 
us images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic 
resonance of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for 
reattaching limbs; and organ transplantation, among other wonders. 
Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that might eventually 
replace bypass surgery. I can hardly imagine what might be next.
  After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health 
Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to 
be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research 
if we were not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly 
constrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8 
on July 2, 1994 to report the Health Security Act, it included a 
Graduate Medical Education and Academic Health Centers Trust Fund. The 
Trust Fund provided an 80 percent increase in federal funding for 
academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term 
funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health 
care coverage, the medical education trust fund enjoyed widespread 
support. An amendment by Senator Malcolm Wallop to kill the trust fund 
by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75 percent assessment on 
health insurance premiums--failed on a 7-13 vote in the Finance 
Committee.
  I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th 
Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration 
of budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to 
establish a similar trust fund. My amendment failed on a tie vote, 10 
to 10. Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill 
did include a graduate medical education trust fund. That provision 
ultimately passed both houses as part of the conference agreement, 
which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. The budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1997 as passed by Congress also appeared to 
assume that a similar trust fund was to be included in the Medicare 
reconciliation bill--a bill which never materialized.
  The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative 
Bill Archer, was largely responsible for the inclusion of trust fund 
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and the budget resolution 
for fiscal year 1997. He and I share a strong commitment to ensuring 
the continued success of our system of medical education. Indeed, 
Chairman Archer and I were both honored in 1996 to receive the American 
Association of Medical Colleges' Public Service Excellence Award.
  That is the history of this effort, briefly stated.
  Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. 
Within our increasingly competitive health care system, it is rapidly 
becoming a public good--that is, a good from which everyone benefits, 
but for which no one is willing to pay. Therefore, it should be 
explicitly financed with contributions from all sectors of the health 
care system, not just the Medicare program as is the case today. The 
fiscal pressures of a competitive health market are increasingly 
closing off traditional implicit revenue sources (such as additional 
payments from private payers) that have supported medical schools, 
graduate medical education, and research until now. In its June, 1995 
Report to Congress, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission 
(ProPAC), created to advise Congress on Medicare Hospital Insurance 
(Part A) payment, summarized the situation of teaching hospitals as 
follows:

       As competition in the health care system intensifies, the 
     additional costs borne by teaching hospitals will place them 
     at a disadvantage relative to other facilities. The role, 
     scale, function, and number of these institutions 
     increasingly will be challenged. . . . Accelerating price 
     competition in the private sector . . . is reducing the 
     ability of teaching hospitals to obtain the higher patient 
     care rates from other payers that traditionally have 
     contributed to financing the costs associated with graduate 
     medical education.

  ProPAC's June, 1996 Report to Congress confirmed that ``major 
teaching hospitals have the dual problems of higher overall losses from 
uncompensated care and less above-cost revenue from private insurers.''
  The State of New York provides a good example of what is happening as 
health care markets become more competitive. Effective at the end of 
the 1996 calendar year, New York repealed a state law that set hospital 
rates. Hospitals must now negotiate their fees with each and every 
health plan in the state. Where teaching hospitals were

[[Page 972]]

once guaranteed a payment that recognized, to some degree, its higher 
costs of providing services, the private sector is free to squeeze down 
payments to hospitals with no such recognition. While the State of New 
York operates funding pools that provide partial support for graduate 
medical education and uncompensated care, it is largely up to the 
teaching hospitals to try to win higher rates than other hospitals when 
negotiating contracts with health plans. Some may succeed in doing so, 
but most will probably not. New York's state law was unique, but the 
same process of negotiation between hospitals and private health plant 
takes place across the country. Who, in this context, will pay for the 
higher costs of operating teaching hospitals?
  It is worth mentioning that the NY state funding pools for GME were 
established as a temporary, yet important source of support for GME 
until Federal law--like the bill I am introducing today--can be passed 
by Congress. While New York has historically recognized the value of 
supporting GME through the state funding pools, this source of funding 
is currently in jeopardy of not being reauthorized by the state 
legislature.
  It is obvious that teaching hospitals can no longer rely on higher 
payments from private payers to do so. Nor should they. The 
establishment of this trust fund, which explicitly reimburses teaching 
hospitals for the costs of graduate medical education, will ensure that 
teaching hospitals can pursue their vitally important patient care, 
training, and research missions in the face of an increasingly 
competitive health system.
  Medical schools also face an uncertain future. There are many policy 
issues that need to be examined regarding the role of medical schools 
in our health system, but two threats faced by medical schools require 
immediate attention. This legislation addresses both. First, many 
medical schools are immediately threatened by the dire financial 
condition of their affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical schools rely 
on teaching hospitals to provide a place for their faculty to practice 
and perform research, a place to send third and fourth-year medical 
school students for training, and for some direct revenues. By 
improving the financial condition of teaching hospitals, this 
legislation significantly improves the outlook for medical schools.
  The second immediate threat faced by medical schools stems from their 
reliance on a portion of the clinical practice revenue generated by 
their faculties to support their operations. As competition within the 
health system intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues 
are shrinking. This legislation provides payments to medical schools 
from the Trust Fund that are designed to partially offset this loss of 
revenue.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, the Bipartisan Commission on the 
Future of Medicare as established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is 
debating its recommendations to assure the long-term solvency and 
viability of the Medicare program. One of the most important policy 
discussions the Commission has undertaken centers on Medicare's role in 
the funding of Graduate Medical Education. In order to remain the world 
leader in graduate medical education, we must continue to maintain 
Medicare's commitment to GME and to the nation's teaching hospitals. I 
urge the Commission to maintain GME support through the Medicare 
program in order to assure a stable, federal source of funding. Several 
Commission members have raised the alarming idea of subjecting GME to 
an annual appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
dangerous notion. It would be a tragedy for our medical schools and 
teaching institutions. Pitting GME against other important federal 
priorities would likely result in a substantial reduction in the 
federal commitment to GME.
  None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the new competitive 
forces reshaping health care have brought only negative results. To the 
contrary, the onset of competition has had many beneficial effects, the 
restraint of growth on average in health insurance premiums being the 
most obvious. But as Monsignor Charles J. Fahey of Fordham warned in 
testimony before the Finance Committee in 1994, we must be wary of the 
``commodification of health care,'' by which he meant that health care 
is not just another commodity. We can rely on competition to hold down 
costs in much of the health system, but we must not allow it to bring a 
premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an age made 
possible by this country's exceptionally well-trained health 
professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. This 
legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax-
supported funding for the public services provided by teaching 
hospitals and medical schools.
  Accordingly, the Medical Education Trust Fund established in the 
legislation I have just reintroduced would receive funding from three 
sources broadly representing the entire health care system: a 1.5 
percent tax on health insurance premiums (the private sector's 
contribution), Medicare and Medicaid (the latter two sources comprising 
the public sector's contribution). The relative contribution from each 
of these sources will be in rough proportion to the medical education 
costs attributable to their respective covered populations.
  Over the five years following enactment, the Medical Education Trust 
Fund provides average annual payments of about $17 billion. The tax on 
health insurance premiums (including self-insured health plans) raises 
approximately $5 billion per year for the Trust Fund. Federal health 
programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the Trust Fund: $8 
billion of current Medicare graduate medical education payments and $4 
billion in federal Medicaid spending.
  This legislation is only a first step. It establishes the principle 
that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by 
dedicated, long-term Federal funding. To ensure that the United States 
continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and 
its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a 
Medical Education Advisory Commission to conduct a thorough study and 
make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
projects, regarding the following:
  Alternative and additional sources of medical education financing;
  Alternative methodologies for financing medical education;
  Policies designed to maintain superior research and educational 
capacities in an increasingly competitive health system;
  The appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical 
education; and
  Policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical 
education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, 
including children's hospitals.
   Mr. President, the services provided by this Nation's teaching 
hospitals and medical schools--groundbreaking research, highly skilled 
medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians--are vitally 
important and must be protected in this time of intense economic 
competition in the health system.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of 
the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 210

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medical 
     Education Trust Fund Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Medical Education Trust Fund.
Sec. 3. Amendments to medicare program.
Sec. 4. Amendments to medicaid program.
Sec. 5. Assessments on insured and self-insured health plans.
Sec. 6. Medical Education Advisory Commission.
Sec. 7. Demonstration projects.

     SEC. 2. MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

       The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding after title XXI the following new title:

[[Page 973]]



               ``TITLE XXII--MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND


                      ``table of contents of title

``Sec. 2201. Establishment of Trust Fund.
``Sec. 2202. Payments to medical schools.
``Sec. 2203. Payments to teaching hospitals.

     ``SEC. 2201. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the Medical Education 
     Trust Fund (in this title referred to as the `Trust Fund'), 
     consisting of the following accounts:
       ``(1) The Medical School Account.
       ``(2) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(3) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.
       ``(4) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(5) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.

     Each such account shall consist of such amounts as are 
     allocated and transferred to such account under this section, 
     sections 1886(l) and 1936, and section 4503 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986. Amounts in the accounts of the Trust 
     Fund shall remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the 
     accounts of the Trust Fund are available to the Secretary for 
     making payments under sections 2202 and 2203.
       ``(c) Investment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest amounts in the accounts of the Trust Fund which the 
     Secretary determines are not required to meet current 
     withdrawals from the Trust Fund. Such investments may be made 
     only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States. 
     For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired on 
     original issue at the issue price, or by purchase of 
     outstanding obligations at the market price.
       ``(2) Sale of obligations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may sell at market price any obligation acquired under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Availability of income.--Any interest derived from 
     obligations held in each such account, and proceeds from any 
     sale or redemption of such obligations, are hereby 
     appropriated to such account.
       ``(d) Monetary Gifts to Trust Fund.--There are appropriated 
     to the Trust Fund such amounts as may be unconditionally 
     donated to the Federal Government as gifts to the Trust Fund. 
     Such amounts shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     accounts described in subsection (a) in the same proportion 
     as the amounts in each of the accounts bears to the total 
     amount in all the accounts of the Trust Fund.

     ``SEC. 2202. PAYMENTS TO MEDICAL SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Federal Payments to Medical Schools for Certain 
     Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a medical school that in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) submits to the Secretary an 
     application for fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make payments for such year to the 
     medical school for the purpose specified in paragraph (3). 
     The Secretary shall make such payments from the Medical 
     School Account in an amount determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b), and may administer the payments as a 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
       ``(2) Application for payments.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), an application for payments under such paragraph for a 
     fiscal year is in accordance with this paragraph if--
     ``(A) the medical school involved submits the application not 
     later than the date specified by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) the application is in such form, is made in such 
     manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and 
     information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(3) Purpose of payments.--The purpose of payments under 
     paragraph (1) is to assist medical schools in maintaining and 
     developing quality educational programs in an increasingly 
     competitive health care system.
       ``(b) Availability of Trust Fund for Payments; Annual 
     Amount of Payments.--
       ``(1) Availability of trust fund for payments.--The 
     following amounts shall be available for a fiscal year for 
     making payments under subsection (a) from the amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medical School Account under 
     sections 1886(l), 1936, 2201(c)(3), and 2201(d), and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
       ``(A) In the case of fiscal year 2000, $200,000,000.
       ``(B) In the case of fiscal year 2001, $300,000,000.
       ``(C) In the case of fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000.
       ``(D) In the case of fiscal year 2003, $500,000,000.
       ``(E) In the case of fiscal year 2004, $600,000,000.
       ``(F) In the case of each subsequent fiscal year, the 
     amount determined under this paragraph for the previous 
     fiscal year updated through the midpoint of such previous 
     fiscal year by the estimated percentage change in the general 
     health care inflation factor (as defined in subsection (d)) 
     during the 12-month period ending at that midpoint, with 
     appropriate adjustments to reflect previous underestimations 
     or overestimations under this subparagraph in the projected 
     health care inflation factor.
       ``(2) Amount of payments for medical schools.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the annual amount available 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the amount of payments 
     required under subsection (a) to be made to a medical school 
     that submits to the Secretary an application for such year in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(2) is an amount equal to an 
     amount determined by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Development of formula.--The Secretary shall develop 
     a formula for allocation of funds to medical schools under 
     this section consistent with the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(3).
       ``(c) Medical School Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `medical school' means a school of medicine 
     (as defined in section 799 of the Public Health Service Act) 
     or a school of osteopathic medicine (as defined in such 
     section).
       ``(d) General Health Care Inflation Factor.--The term 
     `general health care inflation factor' means the Consumer 
     Price Index for Medical Services as determined by the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics.

     ``SEC. 2203. PAYMENTS TO TEACHING HOSPITALS.

       ``(a) Formula Payments to Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any fiscal year beginning 
     after September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall make payments 
     to each eligible entity that, in accordance with paragraph 
     (2), submits to the Secretary an application for such fiscal 
     year. Such payments shall be made from the Trust Fund, and 
     the total of the payments to the eligible entity for the 
     fiscal year shall equal the sum of the amounts determined 
     under subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect to such 
     entity.
       ``(2) Application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     application shall contain such information as may be 
     necessary for the Secretary to make payments under such 
     paragraph to an eligible entity during a fiscal year. An 
     application shall be treated as submitted in accordance with 
     this paragraph if it is submitted not later than the date 
     specified by the Secretary, and is made in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Periodic payments.--Payments under paragraph (1) to 
     an eligible entity for a fiscal year shall be made 
     periodically, at such intervals and in such amounts as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate (subject to applicable 
     Federal law regarding Federal payments).
       ``(4) Administrator of programs.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out responsibility under this title by acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration.
       ``(5) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this title, the 
     term `eligible entity', with respect to any fiscal year, 
     means--
       ``(A) for payment under subsections (b) and (c), an entity 
     which would be eligible to receive payments for such fiscal 
     year under--
       ``(i) section 1886(d)(5)(B), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for discharges occurring after September 30, 1999;
       ``(ii) section 1886(h), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for cost reporting periods beginning after 
     September 30, 1999; or
       ``(iii) both sections; or
       ``(B) for payment under subsections (d) and (e)--
       ``(i) an entity which meets the requirement of subparagraph 
     (A); or
       ``(ii) an entity which the Secretary determines should be 
     considered an eligible entity.
       ``(b) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Indirect Account under section 1886(l)(1), and subsections 
     (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(d)(5)(B) if such payments had not been terminated for 
     discharges occurring after September 30, 1999.
       ``(c) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Direct Account under section 1886(l)(2), and subsections 
     (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(h) if such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999.

[[Page 974]]

       ``(d) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(d)(5)(B) 
     if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1999; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.
       ``(e) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(h) if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(5)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``The Secretary shall provide'' and 
     inserting the following: ``For discharges occurring before 
     October 1, 1999, the Secretary shall provide'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(11)(C), by inserting after 
     ``paragraph (5)(B)'' ``(notwithstanding that payments under 
     paragraph (5)(B) are terminated for discharges occurring 
     after September 30, 1999)'';
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``the Secretary shall provide'' and inserting ``the Secretary 
     shall, subject to paragraph (7), provide''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The authority to make payments under 
     this subsection (other than payments made under paragraphs 
     (3)(D) and (6)) shall not apply with respect to--
       ``(i) cost reporting periods beginning after September 30, 
     1999; and
       ``(ii) any portion of a cost reporting period beginning on 
     or before such date which occurs after such date.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--This paragraph may not be 
     construed as authorizing any payment under section 1861(v) 
     with respect to graduate medical education.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Transfers to Medical Education Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Indirect costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under clause (i) bears to the 
     total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund under title XXII 
     (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and 
     (d) of section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account of such Trust 
     Fund.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--The Secretary shall make 
     an estimate for each fiscal year involved of the nationwide 
     total of the amounts that would have been paid under 
     subsection (d)(5)(B) to hospitals during the fiscal year if 
     such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1999.
       ``(2) Direct costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under clause (i) bears to the 
     total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund under title XXII 
     (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and 
     (d) of section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--For each hospital, the 
     Secretary shall make an estimate for the fiscal year involved 
     of the amount that would have been paid under subsection (h) 
     to the hospital during the fiscal year if such payments had 
     not been terminated for cost reporting periods beginning 
     after September 30, 1999.
       ``(C) Allocation between funds.--In providing for a 
     transfer under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall provide for an allocation of the amounts 
     involved between part A and part B (and the trust funds 
     established under the respective parts) as reasonably 
     reflects the proportion of direct graduate medical education 
     costs of hospitals associated with the provision of services 
     under each respective part.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:


                    ``transfer of funds to accounts

       ``Sec. 1936. (a) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund established under title XXII an amount 
     equal to the amount determined under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under paragraph (1) bears to 
     the total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund (excluding 
     amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and (d) of 
     section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to 
     each account under section 1886(l) relate to the total 
     amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal year.
       ``(b) Amount Determined.--
       ``(1) Outlays for acute medical services during preceding 
     fiscal year.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the Secretary 
     shall determine 5 percent of the total amount of Federal 
     outlays made under this title for acute medical services, as 
     defined in paragraph (2), for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Acute medical services defined.--The term `acute 
     medical services' means items and services described in 
     section 1905(a) other than the following:
       ``(A) Nursing facility services (as defined in section 
     1905(f)).
       ``(B) Intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded 
     services (as defined in section 1905(d)).
       ``(C) Personal care services (as described in section 
     1905(a)(24)).
       ``(D) Private duty nursing services (as referred to in 
     section 1905(a)(8)).
       ``(E) Home or community-based services furnished under a 
     waiver granted under subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section 
     1915.
       ``(F) Home and community care furnished to functionally 
     disabled elderly individuals under section 1929.
       ``(G) Community supported living arrangements services 
     under section 1930.
       ``(H) Case-management services (as described in section 
     1915(g)(2)).
       ``(I) Home health care services (as referred to in section 
     1905(a)(7)), clinic services, and rehabilitation services 
     that are furnished to an individual who has a condition or 
     disability that qualifies the individual to receive any of 
     the services described in a previous subparagraph.
       ``(J) Services furnished in an institution for mental 
     diseases (as defined in section 1905(i)).
       ``(c) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment to the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect 
     Account, the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account, 
     and the Medical School Account of amounts determined in 
     accordance with subsections (a) and (b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective on and after October 1, 1999.

[[Page 975]]



     SEC. 5. ASSESSMENTS ON INSURED AND SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) General Rule.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended 
     by adding after chapter 36 the following new chapter:

                ``CHAPTER 37--HEALTH RELATED ASSESSMENTS

``Subchapter A. Insured and self-insured health plans.

         ``Subchapter A--Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans

``Sec. 4501. Health insurance and health-related administrative 
              services.
``Sec. 4502. Self-insured health plans.
``Sec. 4503. Transfer to accounts.
``Sec. 4504. Definitions and special rules.

     ``SEC. 4501. HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH-RELATED 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed--
       ``(1) on each taxable health insurance policy, a tax equal 
     to 1.5 percent of the premiums received under such policy, 
     and
       ``(2) on each amount received for health-related 
     administrative services, a tax equal to 1.5 percent of the 
     amount so received.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) Health insurance.--The tax imposed by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
       ``(2) Health-related administrative services.--The tax 
     imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall be paid by the person 
     providing the health-related administrative services.
       ``(c) Taxable Health Insurance Policy.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the term `taxable health insurance policy' means any 
     insurance policy providing accident or health insurance with 
     respect to individuals residing in the United States.
       ``(2) Exemption of certain policies.--The term `taxable 
     health insurance policy' does not include any insurance 
     policy if substantially all of the coverage provided under 
     such policy relates to--
       ``(A) liabilities incurred under workers' compensation 
     laws,
       ``(B) tort liabilities,
       ``(C) liabilities relating to ownership or use of property,
       ``(D) credit insurance, or
       ``(E) such other similar liabilities as the Secretary may 
     specify by regulations.
       ``(3) Special rule where policy provides other coverage.--
     In the case of any taxable health insurance policy under 
     which amounts are payable other than for accident or health 
     coverage, in determining the amount of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a)(1) on any premium paid under such policy, 
     there shall be excluded the amount of the charge for the 
     nonaccident or nonhealth coverage if--
       ``(A) the charge for such nonaccident or nonhealth coverage 
     is either separately stated in the policy, or furnished to 
     the policyholder in a separate statement, and
       ``(B) such charge is reasonable in relation to the total 
     charges under the policy.

     In any other case, the entire amount of the premium paid 
     under such policy shall be subject to tax under subsection 
     (a)(1).
       ``(4) Treatment of prepaid health coverage arrangements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any arrangement described 
     in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) such arrangement shall be treated as a taxable health 
     insurance policy,
       ``(ii) the payments or premiums referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)(i) shall be treated as premiums received for a taxable 
     health insurance policy, and
       ``(iii) the person referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) shall 
     be treated as the issuer.
       ``(B) Description of arrangements.--An arrangement is 
     described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement--
       ``(i) fixed payments or premiums are received as 
     consideration for any person's agreement to provide or 
     arrange for the provision of accident or health coverage to 
     residents of the United States, regardless of how such 
     coverage is provided or arranged to be provided, and
       ``(ii) substantially all of the risks of the rates of 
     utilization of services is assumed by such person or the 
     provider of such services.
       ``(d) Health-Related Administrative Services.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `health-related administrative 
     services' means--
       ``(1) the processing of claims or performance of other 
     administrative services in connection with accident or health 
     coverage under a taxable health insurance policy if the 
     charge for such services is not included in the premiums 
     under such policy, and
       ``(2) processing claims, arranging for provision of 
     accident or health coverage, or performing other 
     administrative services in connection with an applicable 
     self-insured health plan (as defined in section 4502(c)) 
     established or maintained by a person other than the person 
     performing the services.

     For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of 
     subsection (c)(3) shall apply.

     ``SEC. 4502. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any applicable 
     self-insured health plan, there is hereby imposed a tax for 
     each month equal to 1.5 percent of the sum of--
       ``(1) the accident or health coverage expenditures for such 
     month under such plan, and
       ``(2) the administrative expenditures for such month under 
     such plan to the extent such expenditures are not subject to 
     tax under section 4501.

     In determining the amount of expenditures under paragraph 
     (2), rules similar to the rules of subsection (d)(3) apply.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) shall 
     be paid by the plan sponsor.
       ``(2) Plan sponsor.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `plan sponsor' means--
       ``(A) the employer in the case of a plan established or 
     maintained by a single employer,
       ``(B) the employee organization in the case of a plan 
     established or maintained by an employee organization, or
       ``(C) in the case of--
       ``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more 
     employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more 
     employee organizations,
       ``(ii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association under 
     section 501(c)(9), or
       ``(iii) any other association plan,

     the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other 
     similar group of representatives of the parties who establish 
     or maintain the plan.
       ``(c) Applicable Self-Insured Health Plan.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `applicable self-insured health plan' 
     means any plan for providing accident or health coverage if 
     any portion of such coverage is provided other than through 
     an insurance policy.
       ``(d) Accident or Health Coverage Expenditures.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The accident or health coverage 
     expenditures of any applicable self-insured health plan for 
     any month are the aggregate expenditures paid in such month 
     for accident or health coverage provided under such plan to 
     the extent such expenditures are not subject to tax under 
     section 4501.
       ``(2) Treatment of reimbursements.--In determining accident 
     or health coverage expenditures during any month of any 
     applicable self-insured health plan, reimbursements (by 
     insurance or otherwise) received during such month shall be 
     taken into account as a reduction in accident or health 
     coverage expenditures.
       ``(3) Certain expenditures disregarded.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any expenditure for the acquisition or 
     improvement of land or for the acquisition or improvement of 
     any property to be used in connection with the provision of 
     accident or health coverage which is subject to the allowance 
     under section 167, except that, for purposes of paragraph 
     (1), allowances under section 167 shall be considered as 
     expenditures.

     ``SEC. 4503. TRANSFER TO ACCOUNTS.

       ``For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     there are hereby appropriated and transferred to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the Social Security 
     Act amounts equivalent to taxes received in the Treasury 
     under sections 4501 and 4502, of which--
       ``(1) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) of such Act for the fiscal year (reduced 
     by the balance in such account at the end of the preceding 
     fiscal year) as the amount transferred to such Trust Fund 
     under this section bears to the total amounts transferred to 
     such Trust Fund (excluding amounts transferred under 
     subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 of such Act) for 
     such fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to 
     such account under section 1886(l) of such Act relate to the 
     total amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal 
     year.

     Such amounts shall be transferred in the same manner as under 
     section 9601.

     ``SEC. 4504. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) Accident or health coverage.--The term `accident or 
     health coverage' means any coverage which, if provided by an 
     insurance policy, would cause such policy to be a taxable 
     health insurance policy (as defined in section 4501(c)).
       ``(2) Insurance policy.--The term `insurance policy' means 
     any policy or other instrument whereby a contract of 
     insurance is issued, renewed, or extended.
       ``(3) Premium.--The term `premium' means the gross amount 
     of premiums and other consideration (including advance 
     premiums, deposits, fees, and assessments) arising from 
     policies issued by a person acting as the primary insurer, 
     adjusted for any return or additional premiums paid as a 
     result of endorsements, cancellations, audits, or 
     retrospective rating. Amounts returned where the amount is 
     not fixed in the contract but depends on the experience of 
     the insurer or the

[[Page 976]]

     discretion of management shall not be included in return 
     premiums.
       ``(4) United states.--The term `United States' includes any 
     possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(A) the term `person' includes any governmental entity, 
     and
       ``(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, 
     governmental entities shall not be exempt from the taxes 
     imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Exempt governmental programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an exempt governmental 
     program--
       ``(i) no tax shall be imposed under section 4501 on any 
     premium received pursuant to such program or on any amount 
     received for health-related administrative services pursuant 
     to such program, and
       ``(ii) no tax shall be imposed under section 4502 on any 
     expenditures pursuant to such program.
       ``(B) Exempt governmental program.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `exempt governmental program' means--
       ``(A) the insurance programs established by parts A and B 
     of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
       ``(B) the medical assistance program established by title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act,
       ``(C) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason 
     of such individuals being--
       ``(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       ``(ii) veterans, and
       ``(D) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
       ``(c) No Cover Over to Possessions.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no amount collected under this 
     subchapter shall be covered over to any possession of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for subtitle 
     D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to chapter 36 the following 
     new item:

``Chapter 37. Health related assessments.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to premiums received, and expenses 
     incurred, with respect to coverage for periods after 
     September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 6. MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an advisory 
     commission to be known as the Medical Education Advisory 
     Commission (in this section referred to as the ``Advisory 
     Commission'').
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall--
       (A) conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to--
       (i) the operation of the Medical Education Trust Fund 
     established under section 2201 of the Social Security Act (as 
     added by section 2);
       (ii) alternative and additional sources of graduate medical 
     education funding;
       (iii) alternative methodologies for compensating teaching 
     hospitals for graduate medical education;
       (iv) policies designed to maintain superior research and 
     educational capacities in an increasing competitive health 
     system;
       (v) the role of medical schools in graduate medical 
     education;
       (vi) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate 
     medical education payments to children's hospitals that 
     operate graduate medical education programs; and
       (vii) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate 
     medical education payments to institutions other than 
     teaching hospitals;
       (B) develop recommendations, including the use of 
     demonstration projects, on the matters studied under 
     subparagraph (A) in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services and the entities described in paragraph 
     (2);
       (C) not later than January 2001, submit an interim report 
     to the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
       (D) not later than January 2003, submit a final report to 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (2) Entities described.--The entities described in this 
     paragraph are--
       (A) other advisory groups, including the Council on 
     Graduate Medical Education and the Medicare Payment Advisory 
     Commission;
       (B) interested parties, including the Association of 
     American Medical Colleges, the Association of Academic Health 
     Centers, and the American Medical Association;
       (C) health care insurers, including managed care entities; 
     and
       (D) other entities as determined by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (c) Number and Appointment.--The membership of the Advisory 
     Commission shall include 9 individuals who are appointed to 
     the Advisory Commission from among individuals who are not 
     officers or employees of the United States. Such individuals 
     shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, and shall include individuals from each of the 
     following categories:
       (1) Physicians who are faculty members of medical schools.
       (2) Officers or employees of teaching hospitals.
       (3) Officers or employees of health plans.
       (4) Deans of medical schools.
       (5) Such other individuals as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (d) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Advisory Commission shall serve for the lesser 
     of the life of the Advisory Commission, or 4 years.
       (2) Service beyond term.--A member of the Advisory 
     Commission may continue to serve after the expiration of the 
     term of the member until a successor is appointed.
       (e) Vacancies.--If a member of the Advisory Commission does 
     not serve the full term applicable under subsection (d), the 
     individual appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of 
     the individual.
       (f) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall designate an individual to serve as the Chair of the 
     Advisory Commission.
       (g) Meetings.--The Advisory Commission shall meet not less 
     than once during each 4-month period and shall otherwise meet 
     at the call of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or 
     the Chair.
       (h) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of 
     the Advisory Commission shall receive compensation for each 
     day (including travel time) engaged in carrying out the 
     duties of the Advisory Commission. Such compensation may not 
     be in an amount in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Staff.--
       (1) Staff director.--The Advisory Commission shall, without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to competitive service, appoint a Staff Director who 
     shall be paid at a rate equivalent to a rate established for 
     the Senior Executive Service under 5382 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Additional staff.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall provide to the Advisory Commission such 
     additional staff, information, and other assistance as may be 
     necessary to carry out the duties of the Advisory Commission.
       (j) Termination of the Advisory Commission.--The Advisory 
     Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which 
     the Advisory Commission submits its final report under 
     subsection (b)(1)(D).
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish, by regulation, guidelines for the 
     establishment and operation of demonstration projects which 
     the Medical Education Advisory Commission recommends under 
     section 6(b)(1)(B).
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year after 1999, amounts in 
     the Medical Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the 
     Social Security Act shall be available for use by the 
     Secretary in the establishment and operation of demonstration 
     projects described in subsection (a).
       (2) Funds available.--
       (A) Limitation.--Not more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the 
     funds in such Trust Fund shall be available for the purposes 
     of paragraph (1).
       (B) Allocation.--Amounts under paragraph (1) shall be paid 
     from the accounts established under paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) of section 2201(a) of the Social Security Act, in the 
     same proportion as the amounts transferred to such accounts 
     bears to the total of amounts transferred to all 4 such 
     accounts for such fiscal year.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to authorize any change in the payment methodology for 
     teaching hospitals and medical schools established by the 
     amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____


        Summary of the Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999


                                overview

       The legislation establishes a Medical Education Trust Fund 
     to support America's 144 medical schools and 1,250 graduate 
     medical education teaching institutions. These institutions 
     are in a precarious financial situation as market forces 
     reshape the health care delivery system. Explicit and 
     dedicated funding for these institutions will guarantee that 
     the United States continues to lead the world in the quality 
     of its health care system.

[[Page 977]]

       The Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999 recognizes the 
     need to begin moving away from existing medical education 
     payment policies. Funding would be provided for demonstration 
     projects and alternative payment methods, but permanent 
     policy changes would await a report from a new Medical 
     Education Advisory Commission established by the bill. The 
     primary and immediate purpose of the legislation is to 
     establish as Federal policy that medical education is a 
     public good which should be supported by all sectors of the 
     health care system.
       To ensure that the burden of financing medical education is 
     shared equitably by all sectors, the Medical Education Trust 
     Fund will receive funding from three sources: a 1.5 percent 
     assessment on health insurance premiums (the private sector's 
     contribution), Medicare, and Medicaid (the public sector's 
     contribution). The relative contribution from each of these 
     sources is in rough proportion to the medical education costs 
     attributable to their respective covered populations.
       Over the five years following enactment, the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund will provide average annual payments of 
     about $17 billion, roughly doubling federal funding for 
     medical education. The assessment on health insurance 
     premiums (including self-insured health plans) contributes 
     approximately $5 billion per year to the Trust Fund. Federal 
     health programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the 
     Trust Fund: $8 billion in Medicare graduate medical education 
     payments and $4 billion in federal Medicaid spending.

 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL TRUST FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE, FIRST FIVE YEARS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.5% assessment        Medicare          Medicaid            Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             5                  8                 4                17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     INTERIM PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES

                      Payments to medical schools

       Medical schools rely on a portion of the clinical practice 
     revenue generated by their faculties to support their 
     operations. As competition within the health system 
     intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues are 
     being constrained. Payments to medical schools from the Trust 
     Fund are designed to partially offset this loss of revenue. 
     Initially, these payments will be based upon an interim 
     methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.

                     Payments to teaching hospitals

       To cover the costs of education, teaching hospitals have 
     traditionally charged higher rates than other hospitals. As 
     private payers become increasingly unwilling to pay these 
     higher rates, the future of these important institutions, and 
     the patient care, training, and research they provide, is 
     placed at risk. Payments from the Trust Fund reimburse 
     teaching hospitals for both the direct \1\ and indirect \2\ 
     costs of graduate medical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      \1\Footnotes at end of summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Payments for direct costs are based on the actual costs of 
     employing medical residents. Payments for indirect costs are 
     based on the number of patients cared for in each hospital 
     and the severity of their illnesses as well as a measure of 
     the teaching load in that hospital.\3\ For the purposes of 
     payments to teaching hospitals, the allocation of Medicare 
     funds is based on the number of Medicare patients in each 
     hospital; the allocation of the tax revenue and Medicaid 
     funds is based on the number of non-Medicare patients in each 
     hospital.


                 MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

       The legislation also establishes a Medical Education 
     Advisory Commission to conduct a study and make 
     recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
     projects, regarding the following: operations of the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund; alternative and additional sources of 
     medical education financing; alternative methodologies for 
     distributing medical education payments; policies designed to 
     maintain superior research and education capacities in an 
     increasingly competitive health system; the role of medical 
     schools in graduate medical education; and policies designed 
     to expand, eligibility for graduate medical education 
     payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, 
     including children's hospitals.
       The Commission, comprised of nine individuals appointed by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be required 
     to issue an interim report no later than January 1, 2001, and 
     a final report no later than January 1, 2003.


                               Footnotes

     \1\ Medical residents' salaries are the primary direct cost.
     \2\ These indirect costs include the cost of treating more 
     seriously ill patients and the costs of additional tests that 
     may be ordered by medical residents.
     \3\ The legislation will use Medicare's measure of teaching 
     load as an interim measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, 
        Mr. Robb, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 211. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  employee educational assistance act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
permanently extend the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational 
assistance under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code. This bill, 
cosponsored by Senator Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, ensures that employees may receive up to $5,250 
annually in tuition reimbursements or similar educational benefits for 
both undergraduate and graduate education from their employers on a 
tax-free basis.
  The provision enjoys virtually unanimous support in the Senate. In 
the 105th Congress, every member of the Committee on Finance sponsored 
legislation to make this provision permanent, and the full Senate twice 
voted to support it--in 1997 and again in 1998.
  The provision enjoys equally broad support in the business, labor, 
and education communities. I have received letters of support from 
groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, from labor 
and employee groups such as the College and University Personnel 
Association, and from professional groups such as the National Society 
of Professional Engineers.
  Why, then, is it not a permanent feature of the Tax Code today? 
Because, for reasons this Senator cannot understand, the provision has 
been opposed in the House.
  Section 127 should be permanent because it is one of the most 
successful education initiatives that the Federal Government has ever 
undertaken. Approximately one million persons benefits from this 
provision every year. And they benefit in the most auspicious of 
circumstances. An employer recognizes that the worker is capable of 
doing work at higher levels and skills and says, ``Will you go to 
school and get a degree so we can put you in a higher position than you 
have now--and with better compensation?'' Unlike so many of our job 
training programs that have depended on the hope that in the aftermath 
of the training there will be a job, here you have a situation where 
the worker already has a job and the employer agrees that the worker 
should improve his or her situation in a manner that is beneficial to 
all concerned.
  And the program works efficiently. It administers itself. It has no 
bureaucracy--there is no bureau in the Department of Education for 
employer-provided educational assistance, no titles, no confirmations, 
no assistant secretaries. There is nothing except the individual plan 
of an employer for the benefit of its employees.
  Since its inception in 1979, section 127 has enabled millions of 
workers to advance their education and improve their job skills without 
incurring additional taxes and a reduction in take-home pay. As one 
example of the reach of this provisions, IBM, a key New York employer, 
provides education assistance benefits worth millions of dollars to 
more than 4,000 participants a year.
  Without section 127, workers will find that the additional taxes or 
reduction in take-home pay impose a significant, even prohibitive, 
financial obstacle to further education. For example, an unmarried 
clerical worker pursuing a college diploma who has income of $21,000 in 
1999 ($10.50 per hour) and who received tuition reimbursement for two 
semesters of night courses--perhaps worth $4,000--wil owe additional 
Federal income and payroll taxes of $906 on this educational 
assistance.
  And the provision makes an important contribution to simplicity in 
the tax law. Absent section 127, a worker receiving educational 
benefits from an employer is taxed on the value of the education 
received, unless the education is directly related to the worker's 
current job and not remedial. Thus, the worker would be subject to

[[Page 978]]

tax if the education either qualifies him or her for a new job, or is 
necessary to meet the minimum educational requirements for the current 
job. Workers and employers--as well as the IRS for matters in audit--
must carefully review the facts of each situation and judge whether the 
education is taxable under these rules, and employers are subject to 
penalties if they fail to properly adjust wage withholding for 
employees who receive taxable education. More work for tax advisors. 
Permanent reinstatement of section 127 will allow workers who receive, 
and employers who provide, education assistance to do so without such 
complexity.
  Section 127 has also helped to improve the quality of America's 
public education system at a fraction of the cost of direct-aid 
programs. A survey by the National Education Association a few years 
ago found that almost half of all American public schools systems 
provide tuition assistance to teachers seeking advanced training and 
degrees. This has enabled thousands of public schools teachers to 
obtain advanced degrees, enhancing the quality of instruction in our 
schools.
  A well-trained and educated work force is a key to our Nation's 
competitiveness in the global economy of the 21st century. Pressures 
from international competition and technological change require 
constant education and retraining to maintain and strengthen American 
industry's competitive position. Alan Greenspan, the esteemed Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors, remarked at 
Syracuse University in New York in December, 1997 that:

       Our business and workers are confronting a dynamic set of 
     forces that will influence our nations' ability to compete 
     worldwide in the years ahead. Our success in preparing 
     workers and managers to harness those forces will be an 
     important element in the outcome.
       . . . America's prospects for economic growth will depend 
     greatly on our capacity to develop and to apply new 
     technology.
       [A]n increasing number of workers are facing the likelihood 
     that they will need retooling during their careers. The 
     notion that formal degree programs at any level can be 
     crafted to fully support the requirements of one's lifework 
     is being challenged. As a result, education is increasingly 
     becoming a lifelong activity; businesses are now looking for 
     employees who are prepared to continue learning. . . .

  Section 127 has an important, perhaps vital, role to play in this 
regard. It permits employees to adapt and retrain without incurring 
additional tax liabilities and a reduction in take-home pay. By 
removing the tax burden from workers seeking education and retraining, 
section 127 helps to maintain American workers as the most productive 
in the industrialized and developing world.
  Indeed, recent evidence released by the Census Bureau demonstrates 
that the earnings gap between individuals with a college degree and 
those with only a high school education continues to grow. Those who 
hold bachelor's degrees on average made $40,478 last year, compared 
with $22,895 earned by the average high school graduate. In other 
terms, college graduates now earn 76 percent more than their 
counterparts with less education, up significantly from 57 percent in 
1975.
  Despite efforts by the Senate, the most recent extension of section 
127 excluded graduate level education. This was a mistake. 
Historically, one quarter of the individuals who have used section 127 
went to graduate schools. Ask major employees about their employee 
training and they will say nothing is more helpful than being able to 
send a promising young person, or middle management person, to a 
graduate school to learn a new field that has developed since that 
person acquired his or her education. As Dr. Greenspan stated,

       . . . education, especially to enhance advanced skills, is 
     so vital to the future growth of our economy.

  By eliminating graduate level education from section 127, we impose a 
tax increase on many citizens who work and go to graduate school at the 
same time. But not all of them. Only the ones whose education does not 
directly relate to their current jobs. For these unlucky persons, we 
have erected a barrier to their upward mobility. Who are these people? 
Perhaps an engineer seeking a master's degree in geology to enter the 
field of environmental science, or a bank teller seeking an MPA in 
accounting, or a production line worker seeking an MBA in management.
  Simple equity among taxpayers demands that section 127 be made 
permanent. Contrast each of the above examples with the following: The 
environmental geologist seeking a master's in geology, the bank 
accountant seeking an MPA, and the management trainee seeking an MBA; 
each of these persons could qualify for tax-free education, whereas 
their colleagues would not. There is no justification for this 
difference in tax treatment.
  Thus, section 127 removes a tax bias against lesser-skilled workers. 
The tax bias arises because lesser-skilled workers have narrower job 
descriptions, and a correspondingly greater difficulty proving that 
educational expenses directly relate to their current jobs. Less-
skilled workers are in greater need of remedial and basic education. 
And they are the ones least able to afford the imposition of tax on 
their educational benefits. As noted by Senator Packwood in a 1978 
Finance Committee hearing on this provision, employer-provided 
education is not taxable:

       . . . so long as it is related to the job, but the trouble 
     is, once you get higher in a corporation, more things seem to 
     be related to the job. If you are a vice president in charge 
     of marketing for Mobil Oil or General Motors, you could have 
     a wide expanse of educational experiences that would be job 
     related. . . . but for the poor devil in private enterprise 
     who dropped out of school at 16 and is working on a 
     production job and would like to move out of that, all you 
     can train him for is to do the production job better. . . . 
     [T]he lower skilled, the minorities, the less educated, are 
     also the ones circumscribed by law.

This has been confirmed in practice. A study published by the National 
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in December, 1995 
found that the average section 127 recipient earned less than $33,000, 
and a Coopers & Lybrand study found that participation rates decline as 
salary levels increase.
  I hope that Congress will recognize the importance of this provision, 
and enact it permanently. Our on-again, off-again approach to section 
127 has created great practical difficulties for the intended 
beneficiaries. Workers cannot plan sensibly for their educational 
goals, not knowing the extent to which accepting educational assistance 
may reduce their take-home pay. As for employers, the fits and starts 
of the legislative history of section 127 have been a serious 
administrative nuisance: there have been nine extensions of this 
provision since 1978, of which eight were retroactive. If section 127 
is in force, then there is no need to withhold taxes on educational 
benefits provided; if not, the job-relatedness of the educational 
assistance must be ascertained, a value assigned, and withholding 
adjusted accordingly. Uncertainty about the program's continuance has 
magnified this burden, and discouraged employers from providing 
educational benefits.
  For example, section 127 expired for a time after 1994. During 1995, 
employers did not know whether to withhold taxes or curtail their 
educational assistance programs. Workers did not know whether they 
would face large tax bills, and possible penalties and interest, and 
thus faced considerable risk in planning for their education. 
Constituents who called my office reported that they were taking fewer 
courses--or no courses--due to this uncertainty. And when we failed to 
extend the provision by the end of 1995, employers had to guess as to 
how to report their worker's incomes on the W-2 tax statements, and 
employees had to guess whether to pay tax on the benefits they 
received. In the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, we finally 
extended the provision retroactively to the beginning of 1995. As a 
result, we had to instruct the IRS to issue guidance expeditiously to 
employers and workers on how to obtain refunds.
  The current provision expires with respect to courses beginning after 
May 31, 2000. Will we subject our constituents, once again, to similar 
confusion? The legislation I introduce today would

[[Page 979]]

restore certainty to section 127 by maintaining it on a permanent basis 
for all education.
  Encouraging workers to further their education and to improve their 
job skills is an important national priority. It is crucial for 
preserving our competitive position in the global economy. Permitting 
employees to receive educational assistance on a tax-free basis, 
without incurring significant cuts in take-home pay, is a demonstrated, 
cost-effective means for achieving these objectives. This is a 
wonderful piece of unobtrusive social policy. And it simplifies our tax 
system for one million workers and their employers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, along with two letters, representative of many, 
I have received in support of the bill.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 211

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Educational 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Permanent Extension.--Section 127 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion for educational 
     assistance programs) is amended by striking subsection (d) 
     and by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
       (b) Repeal of Limitation on Graduate Education.--The last 
     sentence of section 127(c)(1) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``, and such term also does not include any payment 
     for, or the provision of any benefits with respect to, any 
     graduate level course of a kind normally taken by an 
     individual pursuing a program leading to a law, business, 
     medical, or other advanced academic or professional degree''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to expenses relating to courses beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Graduate education.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply with respect to expenses relating to courses 
     beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                 Washington, DC, January 19, 1999.
     Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Manufacturers (NAM), representing 18 million 
     working men and women in 14,000 small, medium and large 
     businesses across America, I want to commend you for your 
     willingness to introduce and sponsor S. 127 in the 106th 
     Congress. As you know, Section 127 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code enables employers to provide tax-free tuition assistance 
     for undergraduate education through 2000. The NAM supports 
     your efforts to provide not only a permanent extension of 
     Section 127, but the restoration of graduate-level assistance 
     as well.
       The NAM strongly believes that education and lifelong 
     learning are the key to continued economic growth and worker 
     prosperity. Last week, NAM President Jerry Jasinowski 
     participated in Vice President Gore's Summit on Skills for 
     21st Century and urged that government, labor, academic and 
     business leaders all take greater responsibility in 
     encouraging a stronger focus on lifelong learning. 
     Manufacturers have discovered the importance of education and 
     lifelong learning first hand. For instance, raising the 
     education level of workers by just one year raises 
     manufacturing productivity by 8.5 percent and each additional 
     year of post-high school education is worth 5-15 percent in 
     increased earnings to the worker. Despite the fact that 
     roughly 95 percent of manufacturers provide some form of 
     worker training and nearly half spend at least 2 percent of 
     payroll, 9 in 10 report a serious skills shortage. In short, 
     our economy will only continue to grow if our workers are 
     armed with the skills they need to thrive in tomorrow's 
     workplace. Permanent extension of Section 127 for both 
     undergraduate and graduate-level assistance will help do just 
     that.
       Again, thank you for your support for this important issue. 
     The NAM looks forward to working with you and Chairman Roth 
     in developing bipartisan support for S. 127. Please feel free 
     to contact me at (202) 637-3133 if the NAM can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sandra Boyd,      
     Assistant Vice President.
                                  ____

         National Association of Independent Colleges and 
           Universities,
                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 1999.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: I am writing to offer my sincere 
     appreciation for your sponsorship of legislation that will 
     permanently extend IRC Sec. 127 for both undergraduate and 
     graduate courses. On behalf of over 900 independent colleges 
     and universities across the country that make up the National 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), 
     I thank you for your continued commitment to encouraging a 
     well-educated and properly-trained workforce through the 
     permanent extension of this tax credit.
       As you know, this important provision of the tax code 
     allows employees to exclude from their income the first 
     $5,250 of educational benefits paid by their employers. While 
     the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 temporarily extended the 
     benefit for undergraduate courses, graduate courses are 
     currently not included in the Sec. 127 extension that is set 
     to expire on May 31, 2000. Legislation that will permanently 
     extend the credit for both graduate and undergraduate courses 
     is absolutely critical.
       Employees benefit from Sec. 127 by keeping current in 
     rapidly advancing fields, improving basic skills, or, in 
     extreme cases, learning new skills. Sec. 127 also serves as 
     an effective means for entry level employees to move from low 
     wage jobs to higher wage jobs while remaining in the 
     workforce.
       Sec. 127 has always received strong support in both the 
     House and Senate, and as a time-tested initiative, it ought 
     to be included in any tax vehicle that comes before the 106th 
     Congress. NAICU looks forward to working with you and the 
     other supporters of this legislation to move the bill 
     forward.
       Again thank you for your continued efforts on this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                       David L. Warren, President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 212. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the economic activity credit for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 213. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the limitation of the cover over of tax on distilled spirits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 214. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the research and development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  S. 215. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
increase the allotments for territories under the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program; to the Committee on Finance.


                    PUERTO RICO LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce three 
tax measures designed to strengthen our commitment to enhancing the 
prospects for long-term economic growth in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, and a fourth piece of legislation to ensure fair funding for its 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Twice this decade, Congress has imposed significant tax increases on 
companies doing business in Puerto Rico. Those tax increases in 1993 
and 1996, agreed to in the context of broader deficit reduction and 
minimum wage legislation, substantially altered the economic 
relationship between the United States and the possessions. The 
legislation I introduce today will address several of the economic 
concerns caused by those tax increases and restore incentives for 
employment, investment, and business opportunities.
  Federal tax incentives for economic activity in Puerto Rico are 
nearly as old as the income tax itself. Under the Revenue Act of 1921, 
U.S. corporations that met two gross income tests were deemed 
``possessions corporations'' exempt from tax on all income derived from 
sources outside the United States. The possessions corporation 
exemption remained unchanged until 1976. Section 936 of the Internal 
Revenue Code, added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, maintained the 
exemption for income derived by U.S. corporations from operations in a 
possession. It also exempted from tax the dividends remitted by a 
possessions corporation to its U.S. parent. However, to prevent the 
avoidance of tax on investments in foreign countries by possessions 
corporations, the

[[Page 980]]

1976 Tax Reform Act eliminated the exemption for income derived outside 
the possessions.
  In 1993, Congress imposed significant limitations on Section 936. The 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 subjected Section 936 to two 
alternative limitations (the taxpayer may choose which limitation 
applies). One limitation is based on factors that reflect the 
corporation's economic activity in the possessions. The other 
limitation is based on a percentage of the credit that would be 
allowable under prior-law rules. The staff of the Joint Tax Committee 
estimated that the 1993 Act changes would raise $3.75 billion over five 
years.
  While Congress substantially limited tax incentives for companies 
doing business in Puerto Rico in 1993, the Small Business Job 
Protection Act of 1996 effectively repealed remaining federal tax 
incentives, subject to a 10-year transition rule for taxpayers with 
existing investments in Puerto Rico. The Joint Tax Committee staff 
estimated the 1996 changes would raise $10.5 billion over ten years.
  In committee report language accompanying the 1976 Act, Congress 
recognized that the Federal government imposes upon the possessions 
various requirements, such as minimum wage requirements and 
requirements to use U.S. flag ships in transporting goods between the 
United States and various possessions, that substantially increase the 
labor, transportation and other costs of establishing business 
operations in Puerto Rico. In the 1990s, in light of trade agreements 
such as NAFTA and increased economic competition from low-wage 
Caribbean countries, these concerns are particularly acute.
  Traditionally, Puerto Rico has been excluded from or underfinanced in 
many federal programs because, it has been argued, the island does not 
pay income taxes to the Federal government. For example, Puerto Rico 
has only minimal Federal participation in the Medicaid program. In 
1998, Puerto Rico's Medicaid program received approximately $170 
million in federal funds, whereas it could have received approximately 
$500 million if it were treated as a state. Clearly, Congress should 
not adopt a double standard of taxing Puerto Rico's economic activity 
while denying funding for federal programs.
  Mr. President, the first of the bills I introduce today, while not 
designed to reinstate prior law, seeks to build on the temporary wage 
credit that is currently provided in the Internal Revenue Code. The 
bill removes provisions that limit, in taxable years beginning after 
2001, the aggregate taxable income taken into account in determining 
the amount of the credit. Employers would generally be eligible for a 
tax credit equal to 60 percent of wages and fringe benefit expenses for 
employees located in Puerto Rico. New as well as existing employers 
would be rewarded for providing local jobs. Instead of expiring at the 
end of 2005, the credit would terminate three years later for tax years 
starting after 2008. Thus, businesses would have a 10 year period in 
which to take advantage of these incentives.
  A second proposal addresses the inequitable treatment of Puerto Rico 
under the tax credit for increasing research activities (the R&D tax 
credit). The R&D credit has never applied to qualified research 
conducted in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions. Until 
recently, U.S. companies paid no taxes on Puerto Rico source income. As 
a result, there were no tax consequences to Puerto Rico's exclusion 
from the R&D credit. With the phasing out of section 936, applying the 
R&D credit to research expenditures in Puerto Rico has become a matter 
of fairness, and this legislation would ensure eligibility for 
companies operating in the possessions. The Government of Puerto Rico 
has made research and development a centerpiece of its new economic 
model, and Puerto Rico's 1998 Tax Incentives Act created a deduction 
for research and development expenses incurred for new or improved 
products or industrial processes. While the immediate cost of extending 
the R&D credit to Puerto Rico is minimal (in 1998, the Joint Tax 
Committee estimated the total five year revenue loss at $4 million), 
the long term benefits for Puerto Rico's diversifying economy could be 
significant.
  The third bill addresses a provision of the tax law a portion of 
which expired on September 30, 1998. The Puerto Rican Federal Relations 
Act and the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands mandate that all 
federal collections on insular products be transferred (``covered-
over'') to those unincorporated jurisdictions of our Nation. Further, 
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act provides that collections on 
all imported rum be transferred to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands. In 1984, because of a dispute concerning the use of 
the tax cover-over mechanism in Puerto Rico, the cover-over was limited 
to an amount of $10.50 per gallon tax on rum, rather than the full 
$13.50 per gallon tax. The disputed practice was discontinued many 
years ago. In 1993, Congress enacted a temporary increase in the rum 
cover-over, to $11.30, effective for five years. That provision expired 
on September 30, 1998, and the rum cover-over dropped back to $10.50. 
The legislation would restore the cover-over to the full amount of the 
excise tax collected on rum ($13.50 per proof gallon), as mandated in 
the basic laws regarding those jurisdictions and in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 
such a proposal would cost $350 million over 5 years and $700 million 
over 10 years.
  Additionally, the proposal provides that, for a five-year period, 50 
cents per gallon of the cover-over to Puerto Rico would be further 
transferred to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust. The Conservation 
Trust, created for the protection of the natural resources and 
environmental beauty of Puerto Rico, was established by the Department 
of the Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1968. The Trust 
was initially funded through an oil import fee. More recently, it was 
primarily financed through Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code. 
The Trust lost more than 80 percent of its funding as a consequence of 
the decision to phase-out section 936 and eliminate the Qualified 
Possession Source Investment Income provision in the tax code. The 
proposal to transfer a portion of the restored cover-over for five 
years to capitalize the Trust is projected to result in a permanent 
endowment.
  Lastly, I introduce a bill to provide sufficient funding for Puerto 
Rico and the Territories' Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP).
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established CHIP as a grant to states 
to cover uninsured low-income children. We provided approximately $20 
billion in the first five years. The original allocation formula would 
have provided only 0.25 percent of the funding to Puerto Rico and the 
Territories.
  Recognizing that this allocation provided insufficient funding for 
CHIP programs in Puerto Rico and the Territories, Congress increased 
their allotments by $32 million in the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999. However, this 
increase was provided for Fiscal Year 1999 only.
  This bill would increase the allotments for Puerto Rico and the 
Territories for future years such that funding would equal about one 
percent of the total grant funding. Puerto Rico and the Territories 
account for about 1.52 percent of the nation's population. This would 
increase funding in Fiscal Year 2000 to $34.2 million. I urge my 
colleagues' support for this modest but significant legislation.
  In an era of open borders, expanding trade, and increasingly 
interlinked economic ties, the United States should not punish Puerto 
Rico by selectively applying some laws while denying the benefits of 
others. Economic conditions in Puerto Rico warrant special 
consideration. While the United States is enjoying the benefits of an 
historically unprecedented period of economic expansion, unemployment 
among Puerto Rico's 3.5 million inhabitants remains high at 12.5 
percent. The needs of Puerto Rico, and the importance of this 
provision, were magnified by the devastation recently

[[Page 981]]

caused by Hurricane Georges. Mr. President, now is the time to 
reinforce our close economic relationship with Puerto Rico. I hope my 
colleagues in the Senate will join me in working toward swift passage 
of these measures.
  Finally, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
four measures be printed in full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 212

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto 
     Rico Economic Activity Credit Improvement Act of 1999''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF PUERTO RICO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section 
     30A(a)(2) (defining qualified domestic corporation) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified domestic corporation.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--A domestic corporation shall be treated 
     as a qualified domestic corporation for a taxable year if it 
     is actively conducting within Puerto Rico during the taxable 
     year--
       ``(i) a line of business with respect to which the domestic 
     corporation is an existing credit claimant under section 
     936(j)(9), or
       ``(ii) an eligible line of business not described in clause 
     (i).
       ``(B) Limitation to lines of business.--A domestic 
     corporation shall be treated as a qualified domestic 
     corporation under subparagraph (A) only with respect to the 
     lines of business described in subparagraph (A) which it is 
     actively conducting in Puerto Rico during the taxable year.
       ``(C) Exception for corporations electing reduced credit.--
     A domestic corporation shall not be treated as a qualified 
     domestic corporation if such corporation (or any predecessor) 
     had an election in effect under section 936(a)(4)(B)(iii) for 
     any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1996.''
       (b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis; 
     Eligible Line of Business.--Section 30A is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Application on Line of Business Basis; Eligible Lines 
     of Business.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Application to separate line of business.--
       ``(A) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a), this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each substantial line of business 
     of the qualified domestic corporation.
       ``(B) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a substantial line of business 
     with respect to which the qualified domestic corporation is 
     an existing credit claimant under section 936(j)(9).
       ``(C) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, 
     including rules--
       ``(i) for the allocation of items of income, gain, 
     deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable 
     income under subsection (a), and
       ``(ii) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit 
     expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of 
     applying the limitations under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Eligible line of business.--The term `eligible line 
     of business' means a substantial line of business in any of 
     the following trades or businesses:
       ``(A) Manufacturing.
       ``(B) Agriculture.
       ``(C) Forestry.
       ``(D) Fishing.
       ``(3) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the determination of whether a line of business 
     is a substantial line of business shall be determined by 
     reference to 2-digit codes under the North American Industry 
     Classification System (62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly 
     known as `SIC codes').''
       (c) Repeal of Base Period Cap.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30A(a)(1) (relating to allowance 
     of credit) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 30A(e)(1) is amended by 
     inserting ``but not including subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii) 
     thereof'' after ``thereunder''.
       (d) Application of Credit.--Section 30A(h) (relating to 
     applicability of section), as redesignated by subsection (b), 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2009''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 30A(b) is amended by striking ``within a 
     possession'' each place it appears and inserting ``within 
     Puerto Rico''.
       (2) Section 30A(d) is amended by striking ``possession'' 
     each place it appears.
       (3) Section 30A(f) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified income taxes.--The qualified income taxes 
     for any taxable year allocable to nonsheltered income shall 
     be determined in the same manner as under section 936(i)(3).
       ``(2) Qualified wages.--The qualified wages for any taxable 
     year shall be determined in the same manner as under section 
     936(i)(1).
       ``(3) Other terms.--Any term used in this section which is 
     also used in section 936 shall have the same meaning given 
     such term by section 936.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

     SEC. 3. COMPARABLE TREATMENT FOR OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section 
     936(j)(2)(A) (relating to economic activity credit) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Economic activity credit.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a domestic corporation 
     which, during the taxable year, is actively conducting within 
     a possession other than Puerto Rico--

       ``(I) a line of business with respect to which the domestic 
     corporation is an existing credit claimant under paragraph 
     (9), or
       ``(II) an eligible line of business not described in 
     subclause (I),

     the credit determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be 
     allowed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995, 
     and before January 1, 2002.
       ``(ii) Limitation to lines of business.--Clause (i) shall 
     only apply with respect to the lines of business described in 
     clause (i) which the domestic corporation is actively 
     conducting in a possession other than Puerto Rico during the 
     taxable year.
       ``(iii) Exception for corporations electing reduced 
     credit.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a domestic corporation 
     if such corporation (or any predecessor) had an election in 
     effect under subsection (a)(4)(B)(iii) for any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 1996.''
       (b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis; 
     Eligible Line of Business.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Application on line of business basis; eligible 
     lines of business.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) Application to separate line of business.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A) for a corporation to which 
     paragraph (2)(A) applies, this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each substantial line of business 
     of the corporation.
       ``(ii) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a line of business with respect 
     to which the qualified domestic corporation is an existing 
     credit claimant under paragraph (9).
       ``(iii) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this subparagraph, 
     including rules--

       ``(I) for the allocation of items of income, gain, 
     deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable 
     income under subsection (a)(1)(A), and
       ``(II) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit 
     expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of 
     applying the limitations under subsection (a)(4)(A).

       ``(B) Eligible line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `eligible line of business' means a 
     substantial line of business in any of the following trades 
     or businesses:
       ``(i) Manufacturing.
       ``(ii) Agriculture.
       ``(iii) Forestry.
       ``(iv) Fishing.''
       (2) New lines of business.--Section 936(j)(9)(B) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) New lines of business.--A corporation shall not be 
     treated as an existing credit claimant with respect to any 
     substantial new line of business which is added after October 
     13, 1995, unless such addition is pursuant to an acquisition 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).''
       (3) Separate lines of business.--Section 936(j), as amended 
     by paragraph (1), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection (other than paragraph (9)(B) thereof), the 
     determination of whether a line of business is a substantial 
     line of business shall be determined by reference to 2-digit 
     codes under the North American Industry Classification System 
     (62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly known as `SIC 
     codes').''
       (c) Repeal of Base Period Cap for Economic Activity 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j)(3) is amended to read as 
     follows:

[[Page 982]]

       ``(3) Additional restricted reduced credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an existing credit 
     claimant to which paragraph (2)(B) applies, the credit 
     determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be allowed for 
     any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1998, and 
     before January 1, 2006, except that the aggregate amount of 
     taxable income taken into account under subsection (a)(1)(A) 
     for such taxable year shall not exceed the adjusted base 
     period income of such claimant.
       ``(B) Coordination with subsection (a)(4)(B).--The amount 
     of income described in subsection (a)(1)(A) which is taken 
     into account in applying subsection (a)(4)(B) shall be such 
     income as reduced under this paragraph.''
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by subsection (a), is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2006''.
       (B) Section 30A(e)(1), as amended by section 2(c)(2), is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)'' and 
     inserting ``the exception under subsection (j)(3)(A)''.
       (d) Application of Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by this 
     section, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
       (2) Special rules for applicable possessions.--Section 
     936(j)(8)(A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an applicable 
     possession--
       ``(i) this section (other than the preceding paragraphs of 
     this subsection) shall not apply for taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1995, and before January 1, 2006, with 
     respect to any substantial line of business actively 
     conducted in such possession by a domestic corporation which 
     is an existing credit claimant with respect to such line of 
     business, and
       ``(ii) this section (including this subsection) shall 
     apply--

       ``(I) with respect to any substantial line of business not 
     described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 1998, and before January 1, 2009, and
       ``(II) with respect to any substantial line of business 
     described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 2009.''

       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
       (2) New lines of business.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b)(2) shall apply to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1995.
                                  ____


                                 S. 213

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION OF COVER OVER OF TAX ON 
                   DISTILLED SPIRITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7652 (relating to limitation on 
     cover over of tax on distilled spirits) is amended by 
     striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsection (g) 
     as subsection (f).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7652(f) of such Code 
     (as so redesignated) is amended by striking ``subsection (f) 
     of this section'' in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting ``section 
     5001(a)(1)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to articles containing distilled spirits that are tax-
     determined after September 30, 1999.
       (2) Special rule.--
       (A) In general.--For the 5-year period beginning after 
     September 30, 1999, the treasury of Puerto Rico shall make a 
     Conservation Trust Fund transfer within 30 days from the date 
     of each cover over payment made during such period to such 
     treasury under section 7652(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       (B) Conservation trust fund transfer.--
       (i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``Conservation Trust Fund transfer'' means a transfer to the 
     Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund of an amount equal to 50 
     cents per proof gallon of the taxes imposed under section 
     5001 or section 7652 of such Code on distilled spirits that 
     are covered over to the treasury of Puerto Rico under section 
     7652(e) of such Code.
       (ii) Treatment of transfer.--Each Conservation Trust Fund 
     transfer shall be treated as principal for an endowment, the 
     income from which to be available for use by the Puerto Rico 
     Conservation Trust Fund for the purposes for which the Trust 
     Fund was established.
       (ii) Result of nontransfer.--

       (I) In general.--Upon notification by the Secretary of the 
     Interior that a Conservation Trust Fund transfer has not been 
     made by the treasury of Puerto Rico during the period 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, except as provided in subclause (II), deduct and 
     withhold from the next cover over payment to be made to the 
     treasury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e) of such Code an 
     amount equal to the appropriate Conservation Trust Fund 
     transfer and interest thereon at the underpayment rate 
     established under section 6621 of such Code as of the due 
     date of such transfer. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer such amount deducted and withheld, and the interest 
     thereon, directly to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund.
       (II) Good cause exception.--If the Secretary of the 
     Interior finds, after consultation with the Governor of 
     Puerto Rico, that the failure by the treasury of Puerto Rico 
     to make a required transfer was for good cause, and notifies 
     the Secretary of the Treasury of the finding of such good 
     cause before the due date of the next cover over payment 
     following the notification of nontransfer, then the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall not deduct the amount of such 
     nontransfer from any cover over payment.

       (C) Puerto rico conservation trust fund.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term ``Puerto Rico Conservation Trust 
     Fund'' means the fund established pursuant to a Memorandum of 
     Understanding between the United States Department of the 
     Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated December 
     24, 1968.
                                  ____


                                 S. 214

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT TO RESEARCH IN PUERTO 
                   RICO AND THE POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is 
     amended by inserting ``, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 
     any possession of the United States'' after ``United 
     States''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                  ____


                                 S. 215

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES UNDER THE 
                   STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277), is amended by inserting ``, $34,200,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $25,200,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2004, $32,400,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 and 2006, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007'' before 
     the period.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 216. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the limitation on the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative 
minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.


 legislation to repeal the limitation on foreign tax credits under the 
                   corporate alternative minimum tax

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Jeffords, 
to repeal a limitation in the Tax Code that results in the double 
taxation of certain foreign source income. The issue involves the 
effect of the corporate alternative minimum tax on income earned abroad 
by United States companies. Correction of this policy flaw is of 
significant importance to the affected companies, their current and 
future employees, and their shareholders.
  The U.S. taxes the worldwide income of its corporations, citizens and 
residents. Under the U.S. Tax Code, U.S. bilateral treaties, and 
international norms, it is generally accepted that income with a nexus 
to two countries should not be taxed by both jurisdictions, and that 
the jurisdiction in which active business income is earned typically 
should have the primary right to tax that income. To effectuate these 
principles and to avoid double taxation, the U.S. tax laws--since the 
Revenue Act of 1918--allow U.S. taxpayers to claim a foreign tax credit 
with respect to foreign income taxes paid on foreign source income, and 
thereby reduce U.S. income taxes on such income.
  It should be emphasized that the foreign tax credit is not a tax 
``loophole'' or ``preference.'' Rather, as noted by the U.S. Supreme 
Court in the 1932 case of Burnet versus Chicago, ``the primary design'' 
of the foreign tax credit system is to ``mitigate the evil of double 
taxation.''
  However, in enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress concluded 
that this salutary purpose was outweighed by another. At that time, 
Congress was concerned with a serious problem: repeated instances of 
large corporations

[[Page 983]]

with substantial economic profits (reported to shareholders in their 
annual reports) paying little or no Federal income taxes. In response, 
Congress rewrote the corporate alternative minimum tax.
  Congress had specific purposes in mind in rewriting the minimum tax. 
First, as noted by the Joint Tax Committee in its General Explanation 
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

       . . . Congress decided that it was inherently unfair for 
     high-income taxpayers to pay little or no tax due to their 
     ability to utilize tax preferences.

  An obvious and incontrovertible sentiment. Yet, as noted above, 
foreign tax credits are not tax preferences or loopholes.
  Congress was also concerned with appearances. The Joint Tax Committee 
Explanation continued:

       . . . Congress concluded that there must be a reasonable 
     certainty that, whenever a company publicly reports 
     significant earnings, that company will pay some tax for the 
     year.

  No argument here. And Congress ensured that companies reporting 
profits would in fact pay tax by, among other changes, requiring 
corporations to increase their ``alternative minimum taxable income'' 
by a percentage of the income reported on financial statements, and 
requiring the use of a slower depreciation schedule rather than 
accelerated depreciation for purposes of cost recovery.
  But what about foreign tax credits? The Joint Tax Committee 
Explanation stated:

       . . . While Congress viewed allowance of the foreign tax 
     credit . . . as generally appropriate for minimum tax 
     purposes, it was considered fair to mandate at least a 
     nominal tax contribution from all U.S. taxpayers with 
     substantial economic income.

  To state it less elegantly, Congress believed that limited double 
taxation of a corporation's foreign source income was a lesser evil 
than allowing a corporation to fully use its foreign tax credits. The 
1986 tax act provided that foreign tax credits could be used to offset 
up to 90 percent of a corporation's minimum tax liability. Thus, 
affected taxpayers pay at least 10 percent of their alternative minimum 
tax, no matter that the tax relates to foreign source income earned in 
a high-tax foreign jurisdiction and that the taxpayer has paid tax on 
that income.
  Although Congress believed the 90 percent restriction to have been 
fair policy in 1986, the restriction can no longer be justified.
  First, we now have a decade of experience over which to judge the 
effect of the restriction. I am aware of at least one key employer in 
New York that alone has paid significant amounts of minimum tax due to 
this provision, some of which was incurred in years during which the 
company reported losses on a worldwide basis.
  Second, since the 1986 Act, there have been a number of significant 
modifications to the minimum tax. For example, the Taxpayer Relief Act 
of 1997 allows large corporate taxpayers to use accelerated 
depreciation under the minimum tax, and it repealed the minimum tax in 
its entirety for corporations with gross receipts of $5 million or 
less. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 allowed taxpayers to 
claim tax benefits under the minimum tax relating to oil & gas 
intangible drilling costs. Considering the post-1986 relaxations of the 
minimum tax, little purpose remains in the 90 percent limitation.
  Finally, since 1986, many of our largest businesses have seen 
tremendous expansion in their exports and foreign sales, thus 
substantially increasing the amount of foreign source income. At the 
same time, these companies must compete with foreign companies that do 
not have to bear double taxation. As my friend Senator Alfonse D'Amato 
noted when introducing similar legislation last year:

       The result is double (and even triple) taxation of income 
     that is used to support U.S. jobs, R&D and other activities.

  The restriction can no longer be justified.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 216

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX CREDIT UNDER 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Section 59(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax foreign tax 
     credit) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and by 
     redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``and if section 59(a)(2) 
     did not apply''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am joining with my colleague 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce a bill that will 
eliminate an aspect of our internal revenue laws that is fundamentally 
unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources.
  Under our system of taxation, U.S. citizens and domestic corporations 
earning income from sources outside the United States are subject to 
U.S. tax on that foreign-source income. In all likelihood, that income 
will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Thus, 
the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. To 
guard against the double taxation of this income, the tax code allows 
taxpayers to offset their U.S. tax on foreign-source income with the 
foreign taxes paid on that income. This is accomplished by means of a 
foreign tax credit; that is, the foreign tax paid on foreign source 
income is credited against the U.S. tax that would otherwise be payable 
on that income. The details of the foreign tax credit rules are 
extraordinarily complex. (Indeed, virtually all of the Internal Revenue 
Code's provisions governing international taxation are complex.) The 
basic principle underlying the foreign tax credit rules, however, is 
simple: to provide relief from multiple taxation of the same income.
  Many U.S. taxpayers have to perform two tax computations. First, they 
compute their ``regular tax.'' Then, they compute their ``alternative 
minimum tax'' (AMT). As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two 
computations, the ``regular tax'' or the AMT. The AMT was enacted to 
ensure that taxpayers qualifying for various tax ``preferences'' 
allowed by the Internal Revenue Code must pay a minimum amount of tax. 
While foreign tax credits guard against double taxation in the 
``regular tax'' computation, the principle of providing relief from 
double taxation falls by the wayside in the AMT computation. Under AMT 
rules, the allowable foreign tax credit is unlimited to 90 percent of a 
taxpayer's alternative minimum tax liability. Because of this 
limitation, income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax. 
This rule operates to ensure double taxation, and the result is double 
(and even triple) taxation of income.
  There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double 
taxation to taxpayers subject to the AMT. The foreign tax credit is not 
a ``preference'' that serves as an incentive for a particular activity 
or behavior, rather, it simply reflects the fundamental principle that 
income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent 
limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax bill solely as a method 
of raising revenue. The bill that Senator Moynihan and I are 
introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on 
foreign tax credits. Eliminating this limitation will mean that 
taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same relief from double 
taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 217. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the treatment of charitable transfers of collections of personal 
papers with a separate right to control access; to the Committee on 
Finance.

[[Page 984]]




legislation to encourage donations of personal papers to historical and 
                       educational organizations

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on 
behalf of myself and Senators Inouye and Wellstone to correct a little-
known estate and gift tax provision that may inadvertently penalize 
persons who donate their personal papers and related items to a 
charitable organization for the historical record.
  The issue arises in connection with the donation of personal papers 
and related items to a university, library, historical society, or 
other charitable organizations. In general, such a transfer has no 
estate or gift tax consequences. While the value of any such transfer 
may be subject to taxation as a theoretical matter, as a practical 
matter the gift will not be taxed because a corresponding charitable 
deduction would be available. This is as it should be: the donor 
receives neither a tax benefit nor a tax burden, and the tax law is not 
a factor in the decision to make such a donation.
  Recently, however, estate planning lawyers have become concerned 
about situations in which such a gift might give rise to adverse tax 
consequences. The situation occurs where the donor retains (or 
transfers to his or her surviving spouse or children) various rights in 
the papers donated, such as a right to limit or control access. The 
restrictions might be in place for many understandable reasons, such as 
to protect the privacy of colleagues, correspondents, staffs, family 
and friends. Depending on how the retained rights are described in a 
deed of gift or will, and how such rights are treated under state law, 
the retention of various rights may cause the gift to fail to qualify 
for a charitable deduction under the estate and gift tax.
  The problem arises under a series of rules enacted in the Tax Reform 
Act of 1969 that were designed to prevent abuses in the transfer tax 
system. These rules were written, in part, to address situations 
involving taxpayers who claimed a charitable contribution deduction 
significantly in excess of the value of property that the charity was 
expected to receive. This result was accomplished by making a 
charitable gift in the form of an income or remainder interest in a 
trust, claiming an inflated charitable deduction through favorable 
valuation methods, and adopting an investment policy for the trust that 
significantly favored the noncharitable interest to the detriment of 
the charitable interest. In response, Congress established certain 
requirements to ensure that the charity would actually receive the 
portion of the property for which a deduction was allowed, and to deny 
a charitable deduction in cases where a ``split-interest'' gift was 
made that did not meet the specified requirements.
  These rules were not intended to apply to the donation of 
historically important papers. Unlike the abusive situations of the 
past where charities were unlikely to receive the benefit of the 
purported gifts, in this situation the charity takes physical 
possession of the collection of papers. This is not a tax scheme 
designed to exploit weak rules.
  I stated that there ``may'' be a problem with the estate and gift tax 
law because it is not clear whether the split-interest rule would 
disallow a charitable deduction in situations where donors have 
retained various rights to control and limit access to their papers. 
When do such limited rights reach the point of being recognized as a 
type of ownership interest under state law? I suspect that many 
prominent people have donated their papers in the past thirty years 
with similar restrictions, in reliance on documents prepared by 
knowledgeable legal advisors and curators, and never imagined that 
there could be adverse tax consequences.
  One way to get around this problem would be to avoid restrictions on 
the use of the papers. But that may not be practical, advisable, or 
desirable.
  We can look to those who served across the street, in the Supreme 
Court of the United States, for examples of the types of restrictions 
that have been imposed on donations of important papers of public 
figures. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who donated his papers to the 
Library of Congress, restricted access to those papers for 10 years 
after his death. Justice Hugo Black, who also donated his papers to the 
Library of Congress, restricted access during the lifetime of his 
heirs, and required that permission be obtained from the executors of 
his estate to use the collection, to publish any writings in the 
collection, or to publish any writings about them. Justice Potter 
Stewart donated his papers to the Library of Congress with the 
restriction that all Court materials be closed pending retirement of 
all justices who served on the Supreme Court with him.
  In contrast, Justice Thurgood Marshall donated his papers to ``be 
made available to the public at the discretion of the library,'' with 
the only restriction being that the use of the donated materials ``be 
limited to private study on the premises of the library by researchers 
or scholars engaged in serious research.'' This was interpreted to 
allow journalists to access the papers. The publication of certain 
information contained in the materials shortly after Justice Marshall's 
death was criticized. Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned 
that Supreme Court Justices might no longer donate their papers to the 
Library of Congress.
  Certainly, retained rights can have value, and could be subjected to 
commercial exploitation. One can imagine a publishing house would want 
access to the papers of prominent Members, Congressmen, or others, for 
use in biographies or on books related to the events that they helped 
shape.
  However, any opportunity to retain and bequeath commercially 
exploitable rights in historical papers free of estate taxes is of 
little importance relative to the need to preserve the documents for 
scholarly research. Consider decision memoranda from key aides, 
correspondence, notes of strategy sessions, recordings of telephone 
conversations such as those made by President Lyndon Johnson and only 
now being aired--will these documents be destroyed if the choice were 
to open the items upon death or to pay an estate tax on them? Consider 
Chief Justice Rehnquist's chilling warning.
  Yet, in most if not all cases, any retained rights can be expected to 
have little realizable value, and opportunities for commercial 
exploitation would appear to be quite limited in scope.
  To this Senator, the right thing to do is clear. I am introducing 
legislation to clarify the tax law. In brief, this legislation provides 
that a person may retain and bequeath limited qualified rights to a 
collection of papers and related items. I.e., a collection 
substantially all the items of which are in the form of letters, 
memoranda, notes, and similar materials. Qualified rights would include 
the right of access to the materials, and the right to designate, 
limit, and control access to the materials, for a period of time not to 
exceed 25 years after the death of the person who created (or 
collected) the materials.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record, along with a letter from our Senate Legal 
Counsel.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 217

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF 
                   COLLECTIONS OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE 
                   RIGHT TO CONTROL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 14 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2705. TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF COLLECTIONS 
                   OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE RIGHT TO 
                   CONTROL ACCESS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this subtitle, if--
       ``(1) an individual transfers an interest in qualified 
     property to a person, or for a use described in section 
     2055(a) or section 2522 (a) or (b), and
       ``(2) the individual retains or transfers to another person 
     the right to control access to such property for a period not 
     to exceed 25 years after the death of the individual,

     sections 2036, 2038, 2055(e)(2), and 2522(c)(2) shall not 
     apply solely by reason of the individual retaining or 
     transferring such right.
       ``(b) Special Rules Relating To Transfer of Right To 
     Control Access.--If any individual transfers the right to 
     control access

[[Page 985]]

     described in subsection (a) to another person for less than 
     an adequate and full consideration in money or money's 
     worth--
       ``(1) no tax shall be imposed under this subtitle by reason 
     of the transfer, and
       ``(2) if the transfer involves the right being acquired, or 
     passed, from a decedent, section 1014 shall not apply and the 
     basis of the right in the hands of the transferee shall be 
     determined under rules similar to the rules under section 
     1015.
       ``(c) Qualified Property.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `qualified property' means a collection 
     substantially all of the items of which are in the form of 
     letters, memoranda, or similar property described in section 
     1221(3).''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for chapter 14 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:

   ``CHAPTER 14--SPECIAL VALUATION RULES; RULES AFFECTING SUBTITLE''.

       (2) The item relating to chapter 14 in the table of 
     chapters of subtitle B of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``rules.'' and inserting ``rules; rules affecting subtitle.''
       (3) The table of sections of chapter 14 of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 2705. Treatment of charitable transfers of collections of 
              personal papers with separate right to control access.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to any transfer made before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Office of Senate Legal Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan:
       I am writing to bring to your attention a recent 
     interpretation of federal gift and estate tax law that 
     threatens to interrupt the flow of historically significant 
     papers of our Nation's academic and historical research 
     institutions from public officials and public figures, 
     including Members of Congress. Over the past decades, public 
     officials have regularly donated their personal papers to 
     educational institutions or historical societies, often upon 
     their retirement, or bequeathed the papers at time of death. 
     Senators and other public officials typically restrict access 
     to portions of their papers for a period of years after 
     donation or bequest, in order to protect the privacy 
     interests of their correspondents, constituents, staffs, and 
     others. These donations provide the donors with no income tax 
     benefit, as government papers do not generate a personal 
     income tax deduction under the Internal Revenue Code.
       The shared understanding up until now has been that such 
     donations also have no gift or estate tax consequence to the 
     donor, as long as the donation is made to a recognized 
     charitable organization. However, under a recent 
     interpretation of provisions of the gift and estate tax law 
     that render gifts of partial property interests ineligible 
     for the charitable deduction, the retained right to control 
     access to papers after they are donated or bequeathed could 
     disqualify these charitable gifts from the charitable gift 
     and estate tax deductions. This interpretation would render 
     charitable gifts of personal papers with a retained right to 
     control access subject to substantial and undeserved gift and 
     estate taxation.
       The possibility that these gift and estate tax provisions 
     could be interpreted to apply to gifts and bequests of 
     historical papers where rights of public access remain 
     discretionary for a period of time has deterred a number of 
     Senators in recent months from completing their plans to 
     donate their Senate papers to charitable institutions. Our 
     office has been in contact with a number of Senators whose 
     plans to donate their Senate papers have been interrupted by 
     this problem. It is unlikely that public officials will be 
     willing to make charitable donations of their papers until 
     this issue can be resolved so as to accommodate the important 
     interests in both scholarly preservation and privacy.
       Consideration of a legislative amendment to the charitable 
     gift and estate tax deduction provisions to clarify that 
     charitable gifts and bequests of public figures' papers are 
     intended to be free from taxation would serve the public 
     interest in ensuring that the personal records of Senators 
     and other officials and public figures are preserved in the 
     public domain so that they may one day become available to 
     scholars and researchers who document our Nation's history.
           Sincerely,
                                                Morgan J. Frankel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 218. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for equitable duty treatment for certain wool used in 
making suits; to the Committee on Finance.


        temporarily reducing the tariffs on certain wool fabric

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
correct an anomaly in our tariff schedule that harms American companies 
like Hickey-Freeman and other producers of fine wool suits. I refer of 
course to the tariff on fine wool fabric. Hickey-Freeman has produced 
fine tailored suits in Rochester, New York since 1899. However, the 
U.S. tariff schedule currently makes it difficult for Hickey-Freeman to 
continue producing such suits in the United States.
  Companies like Hickey-Freeman that must import the very high quality 
wool fabric used to make men's and boys' suits pay a tariff of 30.6 
percent. They compete with companies that import finished wool suits 
from a number of countries. If these imported suits are from Canada or 
Mexico, the importers pay no tariff whatever. From other countries, the 
importers pay a compound duty of 19.2 percent plus 26.4 cents per 
kilogram, or about 19.8 percent ad valorem. Clearly, domestic 
manufacturers of wool suits are placed at a significant price 
disadvantage. Indeed, the tariff structure provides an incentive to 
import finished suits from abroad, rather than manufacture them in the 
United States.
  The bill Senators Schumer, Durbin and I are introducing today would 
correct this problem, at least temporarily. It suspends through 
December 31, 2004 the duty on the finest wool fabrics (known in the 
trade as Super 90s or higher grade)--fabrics that are produced in only 
very limited quantities in the United States. And it would reduce the 
duty for slightly lower grade but still very fine wool fabric (known as 
Super 70s and Super 80s) to 19.8 percent--equivalent to the duty that 
applies to most finished wool suits. The bill also provides that, in 
the event the President proclaims a duty reduction on wool suits, 
corresponding changes would be made to the tariffs applicable to 
``Super 70s'' and ``Super 80s'' grade wool fabric.
  I introduced a similar measure last year. I do so again because of 
the obvious inequity of this tariff inversion, which so clearly puts 
U.S. producers and workers at a competitive disadvantage. This bill 
represents a small step toward modifying a tariff schedule that favors 
foreign producers of wools suits at the expense of U.S. suit makers. We 
should do so permanently, and perhaps, in time, will do so. In the 
meantime, we ought to make this modest start.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 218

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DUTY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FABRICS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of the U.S. notes the following 
     new note:
       ``13. For purposes of headings 9902.51.11 and 9902.51.12, 
     the term `suit' has the same meaning such term has for 
     purposes of headings 6203 and 6204.''; and
       (2) by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
     headings:


``     9902.51.11      Fabrics, of carded  19.8%        No change         No change         On or before 12/
                        or combed wool,                                                      31/2004
                        all the foregoing
                        certified by the
                        importer as
                        `Super 70's' or
                        `Super 80's'
                        intended for use
                        in making suits,
                        suit-type jackets
                        or trousers
                        (provided for in
                        subheadings
                        5111.11.70,
                        5111.19.60,
                        5112.11.20, or
                        5112.19.90).

[[Page 986]]

        9902.51.12      Fabrics, of carded  Free         Free (CA, IL,     No change         On or before 12/  ''
                        or combed wool,                  MX)                                 31/2004           .
                        all the foregoing
                        certified by the
                        importer as
                        `Super 90's' or
                        higher grade
                        intended for use
                        in making suits,
                        suit-type jackets
                        or trousers
                        (provided for in
                        subheadings
                        5111.11.70,
                        5111.19.60,
                        5112.11.20, or
                        5112.19.90).

       (b) Staged Rate Reduction.--Any staged reduction of a rate 
     of duty set forth in heading 6203.31.00 of the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States that is proclaimed by 
     the President on or after the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall also apply to the corresponding rate of duty set forth 
     in heading 9902.51.11 of such Schedule (as added by 
     subsection (a)).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 219. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States 
Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance.


               the northern border trade facilitation act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern 
Border Trade Facilitation Act, a bill that addresses the urgent need 
for increased Customs inspectors and technology along the U.S.-Canadian 
border.
  The U.S.-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the 
world. Canada is also our largest trading partner, with two-way trade 
surpassing $1 billion a day. Yet, the resources that we have provided 
to the Customs Service to process traffic and trade across this border 
are woefully deficient. In a hearing before the Senate Finance 
Committee in September 1998, we learned that the current number of 
authorized Customs inspectors working on the northern border remains 
essentially the same as it was in 1980, despite the fact that the 
number of commercial entries they must process has increased sixfold 
since then, from 1 million to 6 million per year. The increased 
workload reflects of course the tremendous growth in U.S.-Canada trade: 
two-way trade in 1988, the year before the U.S.-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement entered into force, was $194 billion. By 1997, the volume had 
doubled--to $387 billion. There has also been an enormous expansion in 
both commercial and passenger traffic across this border.
  The resources available to the Customs Service over the last decade 
have not kept pace with this enormous growth in workload. As a result, 
increased congestion and delays are evident at crossings all along the 
U.S.-Canadian border.
  This bill aims to correct these problems by authorizing the 
additional manpower and technology necessary to handle the increase in 
trade and traffic between the United States and Canada. In particular, 
this bill authorizes 375 additional ``primary lane'' inspectors and 125 
new cargo inspectors for the northern border, as well as 40 special 
agents and 10 intelligence agents. The bill also authorizes $29.240 
million for equipment and technology for the northern border.
  The bill will also accord Customs the statutory authorization to 
continue providing so-called ``preclearance services,'' whereby Customs 
inspects passengers and baggage prior to their departure from a foreign 
country rather than upon arrival in the United States. This program 
began in 1952 and has helped facilitate travel and decrease congestion 
at JFK international Airport and other ports of entry. Customs has 
indicated that without this new statutory authority, it will be unable 
to continue providing these services.
  Finally, this legislation gives Customs the authority to use $50 
million of the total amounts collected from the merchandise processing 
fee to modernize its automated commercial systems used to track and 
process imports and exports. Customs' efforts to modernize these 
systems are several years behind schedule and underfunded. The funds 
authorized by this bill constitute an essential step in providing 
Customs with the necessary resources to continue its modernization 
efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 219

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Border Trade 
     Facilitation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Canada share the longest 
     undefended border in the world.
       (2) The United States and Canada enjoy the world's largest 
     bilateral trading relationship, and that relationship is 
     continuing to expand. Two-way trade between the United States 
     and Canada has more than doubled since the United States-
     Canada Free Trade Agreement was implemented, increasing from 
     $153,000,000,000 in 1988 to $320,000,000,000 in 1997.
       (3) On February 24, 1995, the United States and Canada 
     agreed to the Canada/United States of America Accord on Our 
     Shared Border (in this Act referred to as the ``Shared Border 
     Accord'') to promote common objectives along the border, 
     including--
       (A) facilitating the movement of commercial goods and 
     people between both countries;
       (B) reducing the costs of border management; and
       (C) enhancing protections against drugs, smuggling, and the 
     illegal and irregular movement of people.
       (4) The Shared Border Accord has already resulted in 
     increased harmonization, shared training, and joint 
     facilities between United States and Canadian customs 
     agencies.
       (5) Increased trade has resulted in a significant increase 
     in merchandise entries and cross-border traffic between the 
     United States and Canada. For example--
       (A) formal entries of merchandise on the Northern border 
     have increased sixfold from 1,000,000 in 1980 to 6,000,000 in 
     1997;
       (B) the number of individuals crossing the Northern border 
     has more than doubled from 54,000,000 in 1989 to 112,000,000 
     in 1997; and
       (C) approximately 40,000,000 privately-owned vehicles cross 
     the Northern land border annually.
       (6) The staffing and technology acquisitions of the Customs 
     Service have not kept pace with the increased trade and 
     traffic along the Northern border. For example--
       (A) the current number of authorized United States Customs 
     inspectors along the United States-Canadian border is 
     essentially the same as the number employed in 1980;
       (B) United States Customs understaffing is the primary 
     cause of congestion at border crossings;
       (C) Customs Service acquisitions of new technology for 
     border management have been principally deployed on the 
     Southern border despite the enormous growth in trade and 
     traffic across the United States-Canadian border; and
       (D) outmoded technologies and inadequate equipment have 
     increased congestion along the Northern border.
       (7) Since 1952, the Customs Service has performed 
     preclearance activities in Canada, inspecting passengers and 
     baggage prior to their departure from Canada rather than upon 
     arrival in the United States. Such preclearance activities 
     have facilitated the movement of people and merchandise 
     across the United States-Canadian border.
       (8) The Customs Service has stated that it is eliminating 
     the preclearance positions because it believes that it no 
     longer has the statutory authority to fund the positions.
       (9) Loss of these positions would increase congestion and 
     delays at United States ports as the Customs Service would 
     require inspections to be performed in the United States, 
     rather than abroad.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to facilitate 
     commerce and the movement of people and traffic across the 
     United States-Canadian border, while maintaining enforcement, 
     by--
       (1) authorizing the funds necessary to open all of the 
     Customs Service's primary inspection lanes along the United 
     States-Canadian border during peak hours;
       (2) authorizing the funds necessary to supply the Customs 
     Service with the appropriate advanced technology to conduct 
     inspections along the United States-Canadian border and to 
     participate fully in the Shared Border Accord;
       (3) authorizing the Customs Service to pay for preclearance 
     positions in Canada out of the funds already being collected 
     from passenger processing fees; and

[[Page 987]]

       (4) authorizing the Customs Service to use a portion of the 
     funds collected from the merchandise processing fee to 
     develop automated commercial systems to facilitate the 
     processing of merchandise.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 
SERVICE FOR ENHANCED INSPECTION AND TRADE FACILITATION ALONG THE UNITED 
                         STATES-CANADIAN BORDER

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       In order to reduce commercial delays and congestion, open 
     all primary lanes during peak hours at ports on the northern 
     border, and enhance the investigative resources of the 
     Customs Service, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
     salaries, expenses, and equipment for the United States 
     Customs Service for purposes of carrying out this title--
       (1) $75,896,800 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (2) $43,931,790 for fiscal year 2001.

     SEC. 102. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT 
                   FOR THE UNITED STATES-CANADA BORDER.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 
     101, $49,314,800 in fiscal year 2000 and $41,273,590 in 
     fiscal year 2001 shall be for--
       (1) a net increase of 375 inspectors for the United States-
     Canadian border, in order to open all primary lanes during 
     peak hours and enhance investigative resources;
       (2) a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed at 
     large cargo facilities on the United States-Canadian border 
     as needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) 
     and reduce commercial waiting times; and
       (3) a net increase of 40 special agents, and 10 
     intelligence analysts to facilitate the activities of the 
     additional inspectors authorized by paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 103. CARGO INSPECTION EQUIPMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES-
                   CANADA BORDER.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under section 101, 
     $26,582,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition 
     and other expenses associated with implementation and 
     deployment of cargo inspection equipment along the United 
     States-Canadian border as follows:
       (1) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (2) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (3) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (4) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (5) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (6) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (7) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors 
     to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic 
     volume.
       (8) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
       (9) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate;
       (10) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
       (11) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
       (12) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
       (13) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
       (14) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
       (15) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
       (16) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
       (17) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communication Systems (TECS).
       (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2001 under section 101, $2,658,200 shall be for 
     the maintenance and support of the equipment and training of 
     personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; 
     Transfer of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section 101 
     for the acquisition of equipment other than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment described in 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified in 
     any of paragraphs (1) through (17) of subsection (a) for 
     equipment specified in any other of such paragraphs (1) 
     through (17).
              TITLE II--ADDITIONAL PRECLEARANCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 201. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       (a) Additional Preclearance Activities.--Section 
     13031(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)(A)(iii)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) to the extent funds remain available after making 
     reimbursements under clause (ii), in providing salaries for 
     up to 50 full-time equivalent inspectional positions to 
     provide preclearance services.''.
       (b) Collection of Fees for Passengers Aboard Commercial 
     Vessels.--Section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (5) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for the arrival of 
     each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or commercial 
     aircraft from a place outside the United States (other than a 
     place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)), $5.
       ``(B) For the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial 
     vessel from a place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), 
     $1.75''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``(A) No fee'' and 
     inserting ``(A) Except as provided in subsection (a)(5)(B), 
     no fee''.
       (c) Use of Merchandise Processing Fees for Automated 
     Commercial Systems.--Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Of the amounts collected under paragraphs (9) and 
     (10) of subsection (a), $50,000,000 shall be available to the 
     Customs Service, subject to appropriations Acts, for 
     automated commercial systems. Amounts made available under 
     this paragraph shall remain available until expended.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 220. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consolidate and 
improve the trade adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional 
adjustment assistance programs under that Act, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


          trade adjustment assistance improvements act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that 
will preserve a decades-old commitment by the United States Government 
to the American worker. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvements 
Act of 1999 will ensure that the trade adjustment assistance programs 
for workers and for firms, first established in 1962 and now set to 
expire on June 30, 1999, will continue uninterrupted through September 
30, 2001. The legislation also proposes a number of reforms to these 
programs to help make them into more effective tools for assisting 
workers who lose their jobs as a result of competition from imports or 
shifts in production to overseas sites.
  By way of background, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program 
provides eligible workers with income support, training and other forms 
of assistance. It also grants technical help to eligible companies to 
improve their manufacturing, marketing and other capabilities in the 
face of import competition.
  First outlined in 1954 by United Steel Workers President David 
MacDonald, the basic Trade Adjustment Assistance program was enacted in 
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as part of President Kennedy's vision 
of American trade policy. It was based on a modest and fair request 
from American labor: if some workers are to lose their jobs as a result 
of freer trade that benefits the country as a whole, a program should 
be established to help those workers find new employment. The Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program was the response. As Luther Hodges, 
President Kennedy's Secretary of Commerce, told the Finance Committee 
during consideration of the Trade Expansion Act:

       Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties 
     when they feel the adverse effects of import competition. 
     This is import competition caused directly by the Federal 
     Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade 
     agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the 
     country as a whole.
       The Federal Government has a special responsibility in this 
     case. When the Government has contributed to economic 
     injuries, it should also contribute to the economic 
     adjustments required to repair them.

  The 1962 Act established the basic TAA programs for workers and for 
firms. Then in 1993, Congress included in the implementing legislation 
for the North American Free Trade Agreement a new adjustment assistance 
program

[[Page 988]]

for workers--the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance program. 
Unlike the basic TAA program for workers, which provides training and 
income support only for workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
competition from imports, the NAFTA-TAA program also provides 
assistance when workers lose their jobs because their factories have 
shifted production to Mexico or Canada. Moreover, the training 
requirements under the two programs differ somewhat. The bill I am 
introducing today incorporates a number of modifications to the worker 
TAA programs that the Administration, in consultation with concerned 
worker groups, has proposed. And I must also acknowledge the 
considerable efforts of Congressmen Matsui and Bonior on this matter 
during the last Congress, which yielded a reform bill similar to the 
one I am introducing today.
  The most significant of the reforms would merge the two separate 
programs for workers, in an effort to make the program more effective 
and responsible to workers, while at the same time reducing 
administrative costs. Key features of the merged programs include the 
following:
  (1) Eligible workers may receive benefits because production has 
shifted to any country, and not just to either Mexico or Canada as the 
law currently provides;
  (2) The Secretary of Labor will expedite her consideration of 
petitions for assistance. Instead of the current 60-day review of TAA 
cases, this bill would require that determinations be made within 40 
days;
  (3) Certified workers will be required to enroll in training within 
16 weeks of layoff or eight weeks after being certified as eligible for 
TAA benefits, whichever is later, in order to qualify for extended 
income support while in training. This provision is intended to promote 
the earliest possible adjustment; and
  (4) The bill provides for a net increase of $40 million in training 
funds to ensure that adequate resources will be available to provide 
workers with the training they need to make the transition to a new 
job.
  Mr. President, it is essential that the United States Congress live 
up to its longstanding commitment to the American worker. The Trade 
Adjustment Assistance programs must not be allowed to lapse. We have an 
obligation, as well, to ensure that these programs operate in an 
effective and efficient manner. The reforms proposed by the 
Administration deserve the Senate's consideration. Time is of the 
essence, however, and I urge that the Senate act promptly to 
reauthorize the TAA programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 220

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Improvements Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSOLIDATED TRADE ADJUSTMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2317) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Labor for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2001 such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
     chapter.''.
       (2) Temporary extension of NAFTA assistance.--Section 
     250(d)(2) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``June 30, 1999, shall not exceed $15,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 1999, shall not exceed 
     $30,000,000''.
       (b) Repeal of NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance 
     Program.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of 
     such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331) is hereby repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 249A of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2322) is hereby repealed.
       (B) The table of contents of such Act is amended--
       (i) by striking the item relating to section 249A; and
       (ii) by striking the items relating to subchapter D of 
     chapter 2 of title II.
       (c) Termination.--Section 285 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2271 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (c)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     assistance, vouchers, allowances, or other payments may be 
     provided under chapter 2, and no technical assistance may be 
     provided under chapter 3, after September 30, 2001.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``June 30, 1999,'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1999,''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) Subsections (a) and (c).--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a) and (c) take effect on--
       (A) July 1, 1999; or
       (B) the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is earlier.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     take effect on--
       (A) October 1, 1999; or
       (B) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is later.

     SEC. 3. FILING OF PETITIONS AND PROVISION OF RAPID RESPONSE 
                   ASSISTANCE; EXPEDITED REVIEW OF PETITIONS BY 
                   SECRETARY OF LABOR.

       (a) Filing of Petitions and Provision of Rapid Response 
     Assistance.--Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2271(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) A petition for certification of eligibility to 
     apply for adjustment assistance for a group of workers under 
     this chapter may be filed with the Governor of the State in 
     which such workers' firm or subdivision is located by any of 
     the following:
       ``(A) The group of workers (including workers in an 
     agricultural firm or subdivision of any agricultural firm).
       ``(B) The certified or recognized union or other duly 
     authorized representative of such workers.
       ``(C) Employers of such workers, one-stop operators or one-
     stop partners (as defined in section 101 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801)), or State employment 
     agencies, on behalf of such workers.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of a petition filed under paragraph (1), 
     the Governor shall--
       ``(A) immediately transmit the petition to the Secretary of 
     Labor (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 
     `Secretary');
       ``(B) ensure that rapid response assistance and basic 
     readjustment services authorized under other Federal laws are 
     made available to the workers covered by the petition to the 
     extent authorized under such laws; and
       ``(C) assist the Secretary in the review of the petition by 
     verifying such information and providing such other 
     assistance as the Secretary may request.
       ``(3) Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary shall 
     promptly publish notice in the Federal Register that the 
     Secretary has received the petition and initiated an 
     investigation.''.
       (b) Expedited Review of Petitions by Secretary of Labor.--
     Section 223(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(a)) is amended in 
     the first sentence by striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``40 
     days''.

     SEC. 4. ADDITION OF SHIFT IN PRODUCTION AS BASIS FOR 
                   ELIGIBILITY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) A group of workers (including workers in any 
     agricultural firm or subdivision of an agricultural firm) 
     shall be certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance under this chapter pursuant to a 
     petition filed under section 221 if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       ``(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in 
     such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm 
     have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened 
     to become totally or partially separated; and
       ``(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm 
     or subdivision have decreased absolutely;
       ``(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive 
     with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have 
     increased; and
       ``(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
     contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat 
     of separation and to the decline in the sales or production 
     of such firm or subdivision; or
       ``(B) there has been a shift in production by such workers' 
     firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or 
     directly competitive with articles which are produced by such 
     firm or subdivision.''.

     SEC. 5. INFORMATION ON CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(e) The Secretary shall collect and maintain 
     information--
       ``(1) identifying the countries to which firms have shifted 
     production resulting in certifications under section 
     222(a)(2)(B), including the number of such certifications 
     relating to each country; and
       ``(2) to the extent feasible, identifying the countries 
     from which imports of articles have resulted in 
     certifications under section

[[Page 989]]

     222(a)(2)(A), including the number of such certifications 
     relating to each country.''.

     SEC. 6. ENROLLMENT IN TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 231(a)(5)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2291(a)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
       (2) by adding ``and'' after the comma at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) the enrollment required under clause (i) occurs no 
     later than the latest of--
       ``(I) the last day of the 16th week after the worker's most 
     recent total separation from adversely affected employment 
     which meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2);
       ``(II) the last day of the 8th week after the week in which 
     the Secretary issues a certification covering the worker; or
       ``(III) 45 days after the later of the dates specified in 
     subclause (I) or (II), if the Secretary determines there are 
     extenuating circumstances that justify an extension in the 
     enrollment period;''.

     SEC. 7. WAIVERS OF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 231(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2291(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) The Secretary may issue a written statement to a 
     worker waiving the enrollment in the training requirement 
     described in subsection (a)(5)(A) if the Secretary determines 
     that such training requirement is not feasible or appropriate 
     for the worker, as indicated by 1 or more of the following:
       ``(A) The worker has been notified that the worker will be 
     recalled by the firm from which the qualifying separation 
     occurred.
       ``(B) The worker has marketable skills as determined 
     pursuant to an assessment of the worker, which may include 
     the profiling system under section 303(j) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)), carried out in accordance 
     with guidelines issued by the Secretary.
       ``(C) The worker is within 2 years of meeting all 
     requirements for entitlement to old-age insurance benefits 
     under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.) (except for application therefor).
       ``(D) The worker is unable to participate in training due 
     to the health of the worker, except that a waiver under this 
     subparagraph shall not be construed to exempt a worker from 
     requirements relating to the availability for work, active 
     search for work, or refusal to accept work under Federal or 
     State unemployment compensation laws.
       ``(E) The first available enrollment date for the approved 
     training of the worker is within 45 days after the date of 
     the determination made under this paragraph, or, if later, 
     there are extenuating circumstances for the delay in 
     enrollment, as determined pursuant to guidelines issued by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(F) There are insufficient funds available for training 
     under this chapter, taking into account the limitation under 
     section 236(a)(2)(A).
       ``(G) The duration of training appropriate for the 
     individual to obtain suitable employment exceeds the 
     individual's maximum entitlement to basic and additional 
     trade readjustment allowances and, in addition, financial 
     support available through other Federal or State programs, 
     including title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) or chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, that would enable the 
     individual to complete a suitable training program cannot be 
     assured.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall specify the duration of the 
     waiver under paragraph (1) and shall periodically review the 
     waiver to determine whether the basis for issuing the waiver 
     remains applicable. If at any time the Secretary determines 
     such basis is no longer applicable to the worker, the 
     Secretary shall revoke the waiver.
       ``(3) Pursuant to the agreement under section 239, the 
     Secretary may authorize the State or State agency to carry 
     out activities described in paragraph (1) (except for the 
     determination under subparagraphs (F) and (G) of paragraph 
     (1)). Such agreement shall include a requirement that the 
     State or State agency submit to the Secretary the written 
     statements provided pursuant to paragraph (1) and a statement 
     of the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives identifying the 
     number of workers who received waivers and the average 
     duration of such waivers issued under this subsection during 
     the preceding year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 231(a)(5)(C) of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2291(a)(5)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``certified''.

     SEC. 8. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES DURING 
                   BREAKS IN TRAINING.

       Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(f)) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``14 days'' and inserting ``30 days''.

     SEC. 9. INCREASE IN ANNUAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS FOR 
                   TRAINING.

       Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through $70,000,000 and inserting 
     ``$150,000,000''.

     SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2296(d)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     takes effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 11. COORDINATION WITH ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEMS, THE JOB 
                   TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT, AND THE WORKFORCE 
                   INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998.

       (a) Coordination With One-Stop Delivery Systems.--Section 
     235 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including the services provided through one-
     stop delivery systems described in section 134(c) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (19 U.S.C. 2864(c))'' before 
     the period at the end of the first sentence.
       (b) Coordination With Job Training Partnership Act and 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998.--Section 239(e) such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2311(e)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``or title I of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998'' and inserting ``or under 
     the provisions relating to dislocated worker employment and 
     training activities set forth in chapter 5 of subtitle B of 
     title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2861 et seq.), as the case may be,''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Such coordination shall include use of common reporting 
     systems and elements, including common elements relating to 
     participant data and performance outcomes (including 
     employment, retention of employment, and wages).''.

     SEC. 12. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 2 of 
     title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 238A. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Application.--Any adversely affected worker covered 
     by a certification under subchapter A of this chapter may 
     file an application with the Secretary for the provision of 
     supportive services, including transportation, child and 
     dependent care, and other similar services.
       ``(b) Conditions.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     filed under subsection (a) and provide supportive services to 
     an adversely affected worker only if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       ``(1) the provision of such services is necessary to enable 
     the worker to participate in or complete training; and
       ``(2) the provision of such services is consistent with the 
     provision of supportive services to participants under the 
     program of employment and training assistance for dislocated 
     workers carried out under title III of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform 
     Act of 1999, or under the provisions relating to dislocated 
     worker employment and training activities set forth in 
     chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2861 et seq.), as the case 
     may be.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of such 
     Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 238 the following:

``Sec. 238A. Supportive services.''.

     SEC. 13. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 225.--Section 225(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2275(b)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) by striking ``or subchapter D''.
       (b) Section 240.--Section 240(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2312(a)) is amended by striking ``subchapter B of''.

     SEC. 14. AVAILABILITY OF CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2317), as amended by section 2, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``There are authorized'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--There are authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Contingency Funds.--Subject to the limitation 
     contained in section 236(a)(2), if in any fiscal year the 
     funds available to carry out the programs under this chapter 
     are exhausted, there shall be made available from funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated amounts sufficient to 
     carry out such programs for the remainder of the fiscal 
     year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on--
       (1) July 1, 1999; or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is earlier.

     SEC. 15. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``for the period 
     beginning October 1, 1998, and ending June 30, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2001''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     takes effect on--
       (1) July 1, 1999; or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is earlier.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROVISION.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 
     on--

[[Page 990]]

       (1) October 1, 1999; or
       (2) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is later.
       (b) Transition.--The Secretary of Labor may promulgate such 
     rules as the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide 
     for the implementation of the amendments made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 221. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to combat fraud and price-gouging committed in 
connection with the provision of consumer goods and services for the 
cleanup, repair, and recovery from the effects of a major disaster 
declared by the President, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


           the disaster victims crime prevention act of 1999

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims 
Crime Prevention Act of 1999, which would stop fraud against victims of 
federal disasters. As with legislation I offered in the past, my 
measure would make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the 
sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery 
following a federally declared disaster. The senior Senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. Inouye] joins me in sponsoring this bill.
  Everyone knows the tremendous costs incurred during a natural 
disaster. During the winter of 1997 through the spring of 1998, there 
were tornadoes and flooding in the southeastern states that caused $1 
billion in damage and resulted in at least 132 deaths. From December 
1996 to January 1997, severe flooding over portions of California, 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Montana resulted in $3 billion in 
damages, while in September 1996, Hurricane Fran struck North Carolina 
and Virginia at a cost of $5 billion. During the past decade, there 
have been a number of deadly natural disasters throughout the United 
States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, 
tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards.
  Through round-the-clock media coverage, Americans have front row 
seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We 
sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of 
their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses. 
We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing 
out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help 
rebuild strangers' homes.
  Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these 
disasters, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on the trusting 
and unsuspecting victims whose immediate concerns are applying for 
disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and rebuilding their 
lives.
  My interest in this was heightened by Hurricane Iniki, which on 
September 11, 1992, leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii and caused 
$1.6 billion in damage. As the people of Kauai began the recovery and 
rebuilding process, a contractor promising quick home repair took 
disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without 
completing promised construction. Most of these fraud victims never 
found relief.
  Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice--
first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and 
fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa 
officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets 
from $60 a month to $60 a day! In other flood-hit areas, carpet 
cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set 
up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities. 
Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered South 
Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at 
outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.
  The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1999 would criminalize 
some of the activities undertaken by unprincipled people whose sole 
intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will 
make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of 
materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a 
federally declared disaster.
  While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil 
and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to 
address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make 
it a federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim 
and fail to provide the agreed upon material or service for the 
cleanup, repair, and recovery.
  The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is 
the responsibility of the states to impose restrictions on price 
increases prior to a federal disaster declaration, federal penalties 
for price gouging should be imposed once a federal disaster has been 
declared. I am pleased to incorporate a provision in this bill 
initiated by our former colleague and cosponsor of this legislation in 
the 105th Congress, Senator John Glenn, who, following Hurricane 
Andrew, sought to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods 
and services legislatively.
  I am pleased to note that there is extensive cooperation among the 
various state and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer 
protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women 
to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-state during a 
natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions 
has created a strong support network.
  My bill would ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
develop public information in order to ensure that residents within a 
federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. The 
development of public information materials to advise disaster victims 
about ways to detect and avoid fraud would come under the jurisdiction 
of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  At the present time, FEMA, under the guidance of its director, James 
Lee Witt, has done an outstanding job in meeting natural disasters. I 
believe there is only admiration and praise for the cooperation that 
now exists between FEMA and state agencies dealing with natural 
disasters. Therefore, I have no doubt that government at all levels 
would benefit from the dissemination of federal anti-fraud related 
material following the declaration of a disaster by the President.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that 
sends a strong message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster 
victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a 
natural disaster.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 22. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
national standard to prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by 
intoxicated individuals; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


                   safe and sober streets act of 1999

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Safe and 
Sober Streets Act of 1999 with Senator DeWine--a bill that will, if 
enacted into law, save 500-700 lives a year. The Safe and Sober Streets 
Act establishes a legal limit for drunken driving at .08 Blood Alcohol 
Content (BAC) in all 50 states.
  Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I offered this very bill last March 
as an amendment to the ISTEA reauthorization bill, now known as TEA-21, 
on behalf of the millions victims of drunk driving crashes. We were 
joined by 22 other cosponsors. I am proud to say that the Senate--this 
body--voted 62 to 32 to adopt this amendment. It was supported by one 
half of each caucus.
  The Senate cast this strong vote because it knew that establishing 
.08 as the legal definition of drunken driving is responsible and will 
save lives. The Senate knew that this bill would encourage states to 
adopt .08 BAC laws. Without it, states will get bogged down in 
legislative gridlock and will not be able to pass their own .08 BAC 
laws. As a result, lives that could have been saved will have instead 
been lost.

[[Page 991]]

  Mr. President, the Senate spoke loud and clear when it voted to adopt 
.08. We voted to save lives. We voted to protect our families from the 
grief associated with losing a loved one to drunk driving. We resisted 
the pressure of a powerful special interest and voted against drunk 
driving. The President called on Congress to pass the bill and he would 
have signed it into law.
  The problem came after the Senate's resounding vote. The special 
interests stepped up their pressure tactics to stop our .08 amendment. 
Despite commitments granted, the House Rules Committee denied a vote. 
Democracy was squelched in back-room politics.
  Last May, Mr. President, the TEA-21 conference leaders--seven 
people--ignored the will of the Senate and the American people. The 
final TEA-21 bill dropped the .08 BAC provision and replaced it with a 
$500 million, six-year incentive grant program specifically for .08 
BAC. The incentive grant program, as constructed in TEA-21, will not 
produce national .08 standard.
  Mr. President, when it comes to an issue like the minimum drinking 
age, which I authored here in the Senate in 1984, or the Zero Tolerance 
for underage drinking and driving, authored by Senator Byrd in 1995 or 
.08 in 1998, there are only two things the federal government can do. 
We can encourage the states to act by giving them money or withholding 
it until they have acted. The former has never worked, but the latter 
already has.
  Withholding federal resources, which has been tested and proven 
constitutionally sound, has worked. All 50 states have a minimum 
drinking age of 21. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
tell us that the 21 law has saved the lives of over 10,000 precious 
young Americans. South Carolina just became the 50th state to pass a 
Zero Tolerance statute. No state has ever lost federal highway dollars 
because of the federal government's efforts to insure that our nation's 
young people do not drink and drive.
  The only consequence has been that lives have been saved.
  Mr. President, under the bill that I am introducing today, all states 
would have three years in which to adopt .08 BAC as the DWI definition. 
After those three years, states would, as with the 21 drinking age and 
Zero Tolerance, face a withholding of five percent of their highway 
construction funds. Those who voted against the Safe and Sober Streets 
Act or prevented a vote in the other body said this was a choice 
between sanctions and incentives. It is not. This was, and is, a choice 
between what works and what does not.
  Worse, the incentive grant program contained in TEA-21 is a classic 
case of how not to construct an incentive grant program. For example, 
most of the money goes to states that have already adopted .08 laws. 
Why provide incentive grants to states which have already acted? What 
incentive does a state need to pass .08 if it has already passed .08? 
Yet, that's what the $500 million incentive grant program does.
  Mr. President, we have provided a fig leaf to cover our shame for 
failing to do what 70 percent of the American people expected us to 
do--to override the narrow special interest and act to protect public 
health and safety.
  Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC is the right level for DWI. 
Adopting this level will simply bring the United States into the ranks 
of most other industrialized nations in setting reasonable drunk 
driving limits. Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria and 
Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France, Belgium, Finland and the 
Netherlands' limit is .05 BAC. Sweden's is .02 BAC.
  Last year, supporters of our amendment included President Clinton. 
The National Safety Council. The Center for Disease Control. The 
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Kemper, State Farm and 
Nationwide insurance companies. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. American 
College of Emergency Physicians. Consumer Federation of America. 
National Fire Protection Association. Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety. Newspaper editorial boards, such as The New York Times, The 
Washington Post, and The Baltimore Sun.
  But more important than the support of scores of businesses, health 
and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion 
leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of 
drunk driving--like the Fraziers of Westminister, Maryland, and Louise 
and Ronald Hammell, of Tuckerton, New Jersey. Brenda and Randy lost 
their nine year old daughter, Ashley, to drunk driving. Louise and 
Ronald lost their 17 year old son, Matthew, to drunk driving.
  Mr. President, organizations who support this bill have one thing in 
mind: the public's interest. The health and safety of our communities 
and of our roads is in the public's interest.
  Every thirty minutes, someone in America--a mother, husband, child, 
grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol related crash. In the 
United States, 39 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol related. 
Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and 
injuries.
  .08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to draw the line 
in fighting drunk driving. It is at .08 that a person is drunk and 
should not be driving.
  Adopting .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: you are 
in your car at night, driving on a two lane road. Your child is sitting 
next to you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver is a 
170 pound man who just came from a bar, and drank five bottles of beer 
in one hour on an empty stomach. If he were driving in Maryland, he 
would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, he 
would be. Does this make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt of 
laws when we are dealing with drunk driving.
  This bill--.08--simply reflects what sound science and research 
proves, and interjects some reality into our definition of drunk 
driving and applies it to all 50 states.
  No objective, credible person or organization can deny that adopting 
.08 BAC laws is the right thing to do. This bill does not eliminate the 
incentive grant program. In deference to those who authorized the 
incentive grant program, but who also supported my .08 bill, this bill 
specifically keeps the grant program. States will have the benefit of 
incentives for the first five years. After that, the money will be 
withheld. But, given past experience, I expect no state to lose funds.
  The Senate has strongly supported this once. It should do so again. I 
urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 222

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Safe and Sober Streets Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD TO PROHIBIT OPERATION OF MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor 
       vehicles by intoxicated individuals

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2003.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) 
     on October 1, 2002, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--The Secretary shall 
     withhold 10 percent (including any amounts withheld under 
     paragraph (1)) of the amount required to be apportioned to 
     any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of 
     section 104(b) on October 1, 2003, and on October 1 of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(3) Requirements.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     providing that an individual who has an alcohol concentration 
     of 0.08 percent or greater while operating a motor vehicle in 
     the State is guilty of the offense of driving while 
     intoxicated (or

[[Page 992]]

     an equivalent offense that carries the greatest penalty under 
     the law of the State for operating a motor vehicle after 
     having consumed alcohol).
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2004.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2004, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2004.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2004, shall be available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period for which funds 
     withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the State meets the requirements of subsection 
     (a)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the 
     State meets the requirements, apportion to the State the 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph 
     (2) shall remain available for expenditure until the end of 
     the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     funds are so apportioned.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Sums not obligated at 
     the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
     lapse.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not meet the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor vehicles by 
              intoxicated individuals.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 223. A bill to help communities modernize public school 
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the public school modernization act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Public 
School Modernization Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this 
effort by my cosponsors, Senators Robb, Kennedy, Daschle, Conrad, 
Bingaman, Edwards, Torricelli, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, and 
Johnson.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is about 
opportunity. If there is one essential job of a responsive government, 
it is to provide opportunity--especially for young Americans. A solid 
education allows young people to open the door to a world of 
opportunity.
  However, too many American children open the door each morning to 
enter a schoolhouse with inadequate facilities for a modern learning 
environment. To help remedy this situation, my Public School 
Modernization Act will fuel a nationwide effort to renovate older 
schools and build new, state-of-the-art educational facilities.
  Mr. President, that is why this legislation must be at the top of the 
agenda for the 106th Congress. As we face the new millennium, we must 
invest in our young people--our future. Congress must look ahead to the 
challenges of the next century and prepare a new generation of 
Americans to continue our world leadership in innovation, industry, 
arts and science.
  Mr. President, this legislation will improve the very base, the very 
foundation of American education. Our children's educational experience 
begins with the buildings they learn in every day.
  We know the condition of these buildings has a direct impact on 
learning. A Georgetown University study revealed that the achievement 
levels of students taught in substandard educational facilities were 11 
percent lower than students in modern facilities. Similarly, a 1996 
Virginia study also found an 11 percentile point difference between 
students in substandard buildings and those in modern facilities. Both 
of these studies were controlled for other variables, such as a 
student's socioeconomic status.
  Mr. President, this data, and numerous other studies like it, allows 
us to formulate a simple equation: Modern Schools Equal Better 
Learning.
  Unfortunately, too many of our nation's school buildings fall into 
the inadequate category. A 1995 General Accounting Office report 
revealed that one-third of all schools, serving 14 million students, 
need extensive repair or replacement. In addition, 7 million students 
attend school every day with life-threatening safety code violations. 
How can we expect our children to effectively focus on their lessons in 
such an environment?
  In my home state of New Jersey we have a range of school 
modernization needs. The condition of low income, urban school 
facilities were at issue in a decades-long lawsuit that was recently 
settled. However, the problem is not just an urban problem. In my 
State, and across the U.S., it is a suburban and rural problem as well.
  For example, suburban Montgomery Township has seen its enrollment 
grow by 99.6 percent over last 6 years. Another suburban district, 
South Brunswick, has seen enrollment grow by 60 percent in the past 
five years. One South Brunswick's student, sixth grader Amy Wolf, told 
me that the overcrowding of facilities has prevented teachers from 
working on a ``one to one'' basis with students.
  This overcrowding often costs students their normal recreation area. 
Former playgrounds and sports fields on many suburban school campuses 
are becoming classroom trailer parks because of escalating enrollment.
  In addition to overcrowding, suburban schools are crumbling. Many of 
these facilities, built quickly in the 1960s, are not holding up well 
and need extensive repair.
  And in older, urban schools the condition and age of buildings is 
making it harder to move more computers into the classrooms or wire 
schools to the Internet. According to the GAO report, nearly half of 
all schools don't have an electrical system ready for the full-scale 
use of computers. In addition, 60 percent lack the conduits necessary 
to connect classrooms to a computer network.
  Mr. President, to remedy this situation, my Public School 
Modernization Act presents school districts all over the country with a 
unique opportunity to renovate existing buildings and build new 
schoolhouses from the ground up. The bill will provide special bond 
authority to school districts that will allow these districts to raise 
the necessary funds for school modernization by offering Federal tax 
credits to bondholders in lieu of traditional interest payments by 
States or school districts.
  The low cost feature for school districts is a simple concept. The 
districts will not be obligated to pay interest to the bondholders. 
Rather the bondholders would receive a Federal tax credit equivalent to 
interest payments.
  Mr. President, these savings will free up local school district funds 
for teaching and learning. The savings could also result in significant 
property tax relief for the community.
  In addition, this federal legislation will not interfere in local 
control of education. The Public School Modernization Act offers 
opportunity--not continuous Federal oversight or Federal agency sign-
off for every project. The act simply requires States and school 
districts to conduct a survey of their school facility needs and make 
sure that the bonding authority is distributed in a way that ensures 
that schools with the greatest needs and least resources do indeed 
benefit from the program.
  This new bond authority will be split between two programs. Most of 
the authority will result from a new program, called Qualified School 
Construction Bonds. The majority of this bond authority, 65 percent, 
will be allocated to States in proportion to each State's share of 
funds under the Title I Basic Grant formula. The remaining 35 percent 
of the authority to issue these

[[Page 993]]

special, 15 year bonds, would be allocated to the 100 school districts 
with the largest number of low income children and in addition, to as 
many as 25 districts that demonstrate a particular need, such as very 
high enrollment growth or a low level of resources.
  The rest of the bond authority will come from an existing program, 
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997. It also provides a tax credit in lieu of interest, but for a 
variety of school expenses, including school modernization. This bond 
program will be significantly expanded and improved by this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, the time for this legislation is now, and it must be 
enacted during this Congress. The vast majority of Americans support a 
major federal investment in modernizing public schools. It should be a 
bipartisan goal, and I hope that a number of Republicans will cosponsor 
on this bill before it becomes law.
  The Public School Modernization Act is long overdue, especially when 
you consider that President Eisenhower first called for Federal school 
construction legislation in his 1955 State of the Union address. I hope 
we can make this proposal a reality before the 45th anniversary of 
President Eisenhower's call to action.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 223

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public School Modernization 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the General Accounting Office, one-third 
     of all elementary and secondary schools in the United States, 
     serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair or 
     renovation.
       (2) School infrastructure problems exist across the 
     country, in urban, suburban, and rural school districts.
       (3) Many States and school districts will need to build new 
     schools in order to accommodate increasing student 
     enrollments; the Department of Education has predicted that 
     the Nation will need an additional 6,000 schools by 2006.
       (4) Many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to 
     take advantage of computers and other technology needed to 
     meet the challenges of the next century.
       (5) The Federal Government, by providing tax credits to 
     bondholders to substitute for interest paid by school 
     districts, can lower the costs of State and local school 
     infrastructure investment, creating an incentive for States 
     and localities to increase their own infrastructure 
     improvement efforts and help ensure that all students are 
     able to attend schools that are equipped for the 21st 
     century.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Federal 
     tax credits to bondholders, in lieu of interest owed by 
     school districts, to help States and localities to modernize 
     public school facilities and build the additional public 
     schools needed to educate the increasing number of students 
     who will enroll in the next decade.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter U of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incentives for 
     education zones) is amended to read as follows:

 ``PART IV--INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS

``Sec. 1397E. Credit to holders of qualified public school 
              modernization bonds.
``Sec. 1397F. Qualified zone academy bonds.
``Sec. 1397G. Qualified school construction bonds.

     ``SEC. 1397E. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                   MODERNIZATION BONDS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who 
     holds a qualified public school modernization bond on the 
     credit allowance date of such bond which occurs during the 
     taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the 
     tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year the amount 
     determined under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
     under this subsection with respect to any qualified public 
     school modernization bond is the amount equal to the product 
     of--
       ``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) for the month in which such bond was issued, 
     multiplied by
       ``(B) the face amount of the bond held by the taxpayer on 
     the credit allowance date.
       ``(2) Determination.--During each calendar month, the 
     Secretary shall determine a credit rate which shall apply to 
     bonds issued during the following calendar month. The credit 
     rate for any month is the percentage which the Secretary 
     estimates will on average permit the issuance of qualified 
     public school modernization bonds without discount and 
     without interest cost to the issuer.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a) 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of 
     subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to 
     refundable credits).
       ``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by 
     paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be 
     carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
       ``(d) Qualified Public School Modernization Bond; Credit 
     Allowance Date.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified public school modernization bond.--The term 
     `qualified public school modernization bond' means--
       ``(A) a qualified zone academy bond, and
       ``(B) a qualified school construction bond.
       ``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance 
     date' means, with respect to any issue, the last day of the 
     1-year period beginning on the date of issuance of such issue 
     and the last day of each successive 1-year period thereafter.
       ``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given to such term by 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965. Such term includes the local educational agency that 
     serves the District of Columbia but does not include any 
     other State agency.
       ``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of 
     Columbia and any possession of the United States.
       ``(4) Public school facility.--The term `public school 
     facility' shall not include any stadium or other facility 
     primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other 
     events for which admission is charged to the general public.
       ``(f) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income 
     includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer 
     under this section and the amount so included shall be 
     treated as interest income.
       ``(g) Bonds Held By Regulated Investment Companies.--If any 
     qualified public school modernization bond is held by a 
     regulated investment company, the credit determined under 
     subsection (a) shall be allowed to shareholders of such 
     company under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1397F. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

       ``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bond.--For purposes of this 
     part--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified zone academy bond' 
     means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
       ``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are 
     to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to a 
     qualified zone academy established by a local educational 
     agency,
       ``(B) the bond is issued by a State or local government 
     within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located,
       ``(C) the issuer--
       ``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
       ``(ii) certifies that it has written assurances that the 
     private business contribution requirement of paragraph (2) 
     will be met with respect to such academy, and
       ``(iii) certifies that it has the written approval of the 
     local educational agency for such bond issuance, and
       ``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 15 years.
       ``(2) Private business contribution requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     private business contribution requirement of this paragraph 
     is met with respect to any issue if the local educational 
     agency that established the qualified zone academy has 
     written commitments from private entities to make qualified 
     contributions having a present value (as of the date of 
     issuance of the issue) of not less than 10 percent of the 
     proceeds of the issue.
       ``(B) Qualified contributions.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `qualified contribution' means any 
     contribution (of a type and quality acceptable to the local 
     educational agency) of--
       ``(i) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy 
     (including state-of-the-art technology and vocational 
     equipment),

[[Page 994]]

       ``(ii) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in 
     training teachers in order to promote appropriate market 
     driven technology in the classroom,
       ``(iii) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
       ``(iv) internships, field trips, or other educational 
     opportunities outside the academy for students, or
       ``(v) any other property or service specified by the local 
     educational agency.
       ``(3) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone 
     academy' means any public school (or academic program within 
     a public school) which is established by and operated under 
     the supervision of a local educational agency to provide 
     education or training below the postsecondary level if--
       ``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is 
     designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic 
     curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and 
     better prepare students for the rigors of college and the 
     increasingly complex workforce,
       ``(B) students in such public school or program (as the 
     case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards 
     and assessments as other students educated by the local 
     educational agency,
       ``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public 
     school or program is approved by the local educational 
     agency, and
       ``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment 
     zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or 
     community designated after the date of enactment of this 
     section), or
       ``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of 
     issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the 
     students attending such school or participating in such 
     program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or 
     reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act.
       ``(4) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose' 
     means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
       ``(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or repairing the public 
     school facility in which the academy is established,
       ``(B) providing equipment for use at such academy,
       ``(C) developing course materials for education to be 
     provided at such academy, and
       ``(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such 
     academy.
       ``(5) Temporary period exception.--A bond shall not be 
     treated as failing to meet the requirement of paragraph 
     (1)(A) solely by reason of the fact that the proceeds of the 
     issue of which such bond is a part are invested for a 
     reasonable temporary period (but not more than 36 months) 
     until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which such 
     issue was issued. Any earnings on such proceeds during such 
     period shall be treated as proceeds of the issue for purposes 
     of applying paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(b) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is a national zone academy bond 
     limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
       ``(A) $400,000,000 for 1999,
       ``(B) $1,400,000,000 for 2000,
       ``(C) $1,400,000,000 for 2001, and
       ``(D) except as provided in paragraph (3), zero after 2001.
       ``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
       ``(A) Allocation among states.--
       ``(i) 1999 limitation.--The national zone academy bond 
     limitation for calendar year 1999 shall be allocated by the 
     Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective 
     populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined 
     by the Office of Management and Budget).
       ``(ii) Limitation after 1999.--The national zone academy 
     bond limitation for any calendar year after 1999 shall be 
     allocated by the Secretary among the States in the manner 
     prescribed by section 1397G(d); except that, in making the 
     allocation under this clause, the Secretary shall take into 
     account Basic Grants attributable to large local educational 
     agencies (as defined in section 1397G(e)).
       ``(B) Allocation to local educational agencies.--The 
     limitation amount allocated to a State under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be allocated by the State education agency to qualified 
     zone academies within such State.
       ``(C) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The 
     maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any 
     calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed 
     the limitation amount allocated to such academy under 
     subparagraph (B) for such calendar year.
       ``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar 
     year--
       ``(A) the limitation amount under this subsection for any 
     State, exceeds
       ``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are 
     designated under subsection (a) with respect to qualified 
     zone academies within such State,

     the limitation amount under this subsection for such State 
     for the following calendar year shall be increased by the 
     amount of such excess. The preceding sentence shall not apply 
     if such following calendar year is after 2003.

     ``SEC. 1397G. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS.

       ``(a) Qualified School Construction Bond.--For purposes of 
     this part, the term `qualified school construction bond' 
     means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
       ``(1) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are 
     to be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of 
     a public school facility,
       ``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government 
     within the jurisdiction of which such school is located,
       ``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this 
     section, and
       ``(4) the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 15 years.
     Rules similar to the rules of section 1397F(a)(5) shall apply 
     for purposes of paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The 
     maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any 
     calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) by 
     any issuer shall not exceed the sum of--
       ``(1) the limitation amount allocated under subsection (d) 
     for such calendar year to such issuer, and
       ``(2) if such issuer is a large local educational agency 
     (as defined in subsection (e)) or is issuing on behalf of 
     such an agency, the limitation amount allocated under 
     subsection (e) for such calendar year to such agency.
       ``(c) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is a national qualified school 
     construction bond limitation for each calendar year equal to 
     the dollar amount specified in paragraph (2) for such year, 
     reduced, in the case of calendar years 2000 and 2001, by 1.5 
     percent of such amount.
       ``(2) Dollar amount specified.--The dollar amount specified 
     in this paragraph is--
       ``(A) $9,700,000,000 for 2000,
       ``(B) $9,700,000,000 for 2001, and
       ``(C) except as provided in subsection (f), zero after 
     2001.
       ``(d) 65-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among States.--
       ``(1) In general.--Sixty-five percent of the limitation 
     applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall 
     be allocated among the States under paragraph (2) by the 
     Secretary. The limitation amount allocated to a State under 
     the preceding sentence shall be allocated by the State 
     education agency to issuers within such State and such 
     allocations may be made only if there is an approved State 
     application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     the States in proportion to the respective amounts each such 
     State received for Basic Grants under subpart 2 of part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year 
     ending before such calendar year. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, Basic Grants attributable to large local 
     educational agencies (as defined in subsection (e)) shall be 
     disregarded.
       ``(3) Minimum allocations to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     allocations under this subsection for any calendar year for 
     each State to the extent necessary to ensure that the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) the amount allocated to such State under this 
     subsection for such year, and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amounts allocated under subsection (e) 
     to large local educational agencies in such State for such 
     year,

     is not less than an amount equal to such State's minimum 
     percentage of 65 percent of the national qualified school 
     construction bond limitation under subsection (c) for the 
     calendar year.
       ``(B) Minimum percentage.--A State's minimum percentage for 
     any calendar year is the minimum percentage described in 
     section 1124(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) for such State for the most 
     recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
       ``(4) Allocations to certain possessions.--The amount to be 
     allocated under paragraph (1) to any possession of the United 
     States other than Puerto Rico shall be the amount which would 
     have been allocated if all allocations under paragraph (1) 
     were made on the basis of respective populations of 
     individuals below the poverty line (as defined by the Office 
     of Management and Budget). In making other allocations, the 
     amount to be allocated under paragraph (1) shall be reduced 
     by the aggregate amount allocated under this paragraph to 
     possessions of the United States.
       ``(5) Approved state application.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `approved State application' means an 
     application which is approved by the Secretary of Education 
     and which includes--
       ``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey 
     (undertaken by the State with the involvement of local 
     education officials, members of the public, and experts in 
     school construction and management) of such State's needs for 
     public school facilities, including descriptions of--
       ``(i) health and safety problems at such facilities,

[[Page 995]]

       ``(ii) the capacity of public schools in the State to house 
     projected enrollments, and
       ``(iii) the extent to which the public schools in the State 
     offer the physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-
     quality education to all students, and
       ``(B) a description of how the State will allocate to local 
     educational agencies, or otherwise use, its allocation under 
     this subsection to address the needs identified under 
     subparagraph (A), including a description of how it will--
       ``(i) give highest priority to localities with the greatest 
     needs, as demonstrated by inadequate or overcrowded school 
     facilities coupled with a low level of resources to meet 
     those needs,
       ``(ii) use its allocation under this subsection to assist 
     localities that lack the fiscal capacity to issue bonds on 
     their own, including the issuance of bonds by the State on 
     behalf of such localities, and
       ``(iii) ensure that its allocation under this subsection is 
     used only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of 
     school construction, rehabilitation, and repair in the State 
     that would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

     Any allocation under paragraph (1) by a State education 
     agency shall be binding if such agency reasonably determined 
     that the allocation was in accordance with the plan approved 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(e) 35-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among Largest 
     School Districts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Thirty-five percent of the limitation 
     applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall 
     be allocated under paragraph (2) by the Secretary among local 
     educational agencies which are large local educational 
     agencies for such year. No qualified school construction bond 
     may be issued by reason of an allocation to a large local 
     educational agency under the preceding sentence unless such 
     agency has an approved local application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     large local educational agencies in proportion to the 
     respective amounts each such agency received for Basic Grants 
     under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for 
     the most recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
       ``(3) Large local educational agency.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `large local educational agency' means, 
     with respect to a calendar year, any local educational agency 
     if such agency is--
       ``(A) among the 100 local educational agencies with the 
     largest numbers of children aged 5 through 17 from families 
     living below the poverty level, as determined by the 
     Secretary using the most recent data available from the 
     Department of Commerce that are satisfactory to the 
     Secretary, or
       ``(B) 1 of not more than 25 local educational agencies 
     (other than those described in clause (i)) that the Secretary 
     of Education determines (based on the most recent data 
     available satisfactory to the Secretary) are in particular 
     need of assistance, based on a low level of resources for 
     school construction, a high level of enrollment growth, or 
     such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(4) Approved local application.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `approved local application' means an 
     application which is approved by the Secretary of Education 
     and which includes--
       ``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey 
     (undertaken by the local educational agency with the 
     involvement of school officials, members of the public, and 
     experts in school construction and management) of such 
     agency's needs for public school facilities, including 
     descriptions of--
       ``(i) the overall condition of the local educational 
     agency's school facilities, including health and safety 
     problems,
       ``(ii) the capacity of the agency's schools to house 
     projected enrollments, and
       ``(iii) the extent to which the agency's schools offer the 
     physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-quality 
     education to all students,
       ``(B) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will use its allocation under this subsection to address the 
     needs identified under subparagraph (A), and
       ``(C) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will ensure that its allocation under this subsection is used 
     only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school 
     construction, rehabilitation, or repair in the locality that 
     would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

     A rule similar to the rule of the last sentence of subsection 
     (d)(5) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(f) Carryover of Unused Limitation.--If for any calendar 
     year--
       ``(1) the amount allocated under subsection (d) to any 
     State, exceeds
       ``(2) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are 
     designated under subsection (a) pursuant to such allocation,
     the limitation amount under such subsection for such State 
     for the following calendar year shall be increased by the 
     amount of such excess. A similar rule shall apply to the 
     amounts allocated under subsection (e). The subsection shall 
     not apply if such following calendar year is after 2003.
       ``(g) Set-Aside Allocated Among Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The 1.5 percent set-aside applicable 
     under subsection (c)(1) for any calendar year shall be 
     allocated under paragraph (2) among Indian tribes for the 
     construction, rehabilitation, or repair of tribal schools. No 
     allocation may be made under the preceding sentence unless 
     the Indian tribe has an approved application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     Indian tribes on a competitive basis by the Secretary of 
     Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Education--
       ``(A) through a negotiated rulemaking procedure with the 
     tribes in the same manner as the procedure described in 
     section 106(b)(2) of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4116(b)(2)), 
     and
       ``(B) based on criteria described in paragraphs (1), (3), 
     (4), (5), and (6) of section 12005(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8505(a)).
       ``(3) Approved application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `approved application' means an application 
     submitted by an Indian tribe which is approved by the 
     Secretary of Education and which includes--
       ``(A) the basis upon which the applicable tribal school 
     meets the criteria described in paragraph (2)(B), and
       ``(B) an assurance by the Indian tribe that such tribal 
     school will not receive funds pursuant to allocations 
     described in subsection (d) or (e).
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 45A(c)(6).
       ``(B) Tribal school.--The term `tribal school' means a 
     school that is operated by an Indian tribe for the education 
     of Indian children with financial assistance under grant 
     under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 
     2501 et seq.) or a contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 450f et seq.).''
       (b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns regarding 
     payments of interest) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Reporting of Credit on Qualified Public School 
     Modernization Bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 1397E(f) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on 
     the credit allowance date (as defined in section 
     1397E(d)(2)).
       ``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in regulations, in the case of any interest 
     described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection 
     (b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to 
     subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
       ``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which 
     require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of parts for subchapter U of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to part IV and inserting the following:

``Part IV. Incentives for qualified public school modernization 
              bonds.''
       (2) Part V of subchapter U of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by redesignating both section 1397F and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections for such part as 
     section 1397H.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to obligations 
     issued after December 31, 1998.
       (2) Repeal of restriction on zone academy bond holders.--
     The repeal of the limitation of section 1397E of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this Act) to eligible taxpayers (as defined 
     in subsection (d)(6) of such section) shall apply to 
     obligations issued after December 31, 1997.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR BIA SCHOOL 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 1 of only 2 
     federally-run school systems; and
       (2) there is a clear Federal responsibility to ensure that 
     the more than 50,000 students attending these schools have 
     decent, safe schools.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) sufficient funds should be provided in fiscal year 2000 
     to begin construction of 3 new Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     school facilities and to increase funds available for the 
     improvement and repair of existing facilities; and

[[Page 996]]

       (2) in addition, Congress should consider enacting 
     legislation to establish other funding mechanisms that would 
     leverage Federal investments on behalf of Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs schools in order to address the serious construction 
     backlog which exists at tribal schools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 223. A bill to help communities moderize public school facilities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZAATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Lautenberg to 
introduce the Public School Modernization Act of 1999.
  I was gratified that so many Members of this body recognized last 
year that the need for school construction and modernization is vital. 
The legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing is 
designed to help States build new schools and repair and modernize 
outdated ones, so that our children will have a better, more modern and 
safe environment in which to learn.
  A few weeks ago, the Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design 
at the University of Virginia issued a devastating report detailing the 
alarming condition of many of Virginia's schools. Over 3,000 trailers 
are being used to hold classes. Two out of 3 school districts have held 
classes in auditoriums, cafeterias, storage areas, and book closets, 
and 53 percent of Virginia school districts had to increase the size of 
their classes in order to accommodate their divisions' growing student 
populations.
  We know that smaller class sizes do, in fact, have a dramatic impact 
on student learning, especially in the first 3 years. So in order to 
give our children the learning environment they deserve, we have to fix 
the leaky roofs, build the additional classrooms, and build more 
schools to accommodate our growing student population, and to reduce 
class size.
  This is a constructive role for the Federal Government to play. In 
fact, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who proposed 
a massive $1.1 billion school construction initiative in 1955.
  Our States need our help, Mr. President. This legislation does not 
usurp local control of education or hinder States and localities from 
developing their own solutions to the problem of improving the academic 
performance of our children. Rather, this bill is intended to 
complement the efforts of the many State legislatures that are now 
wrestling with the questions of how to repair and equip old schools and 
how to build new schools.
  Mr. President, no child should be forced to go to a school without 
heat, or have to wade regularly through standing water to get to class, 
or be expected to learn in a trailer with poor ventilation. Our 
children and their parents need our help.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his work on this issue, 
and I look forward to working with him on this effort to bring it to a 
successful conclusion. I also thank Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, 
Torricelli, Edwards, and Bingaman for joining us today.
  I urge all of our colleagues in the State to recognize the urgent 
school construction needs of all of our States and to work with us in 
passing this particular legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 224. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct 
the treatment of tax-exempt financing of professional sports 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.


              the stop tax-exempt arena debt issuance act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a tax bill 
that would correct a serious misallocation of our limited resources 
under present law: a tax subsidy that inures largely to the benefit of 
wealthy sports franchise owners and their players. This legislation--
the Stop Tax-exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act, or STADIA for short--was 
introduced by the Senator from New York for the first time in 1996. 
Since that time, the bill has attracted the close scrutiny of bond 
counsel and their clients, and has received much attention in the 
press, almost all of which has been favorable.
  Mr. Keith Olbermann, at the time an anchor of ESPN's Sportscenter 
program, even declared that the introduction of the bill was 
``paramount among all other sports stories'' when introduced. Passage 
of the bill, Mr. Olbermann said, would be ``the vaccine that . . . 
could conceivably at least lead towards the cure, if not cure 
immediately, almost all the ills of sports.''
  Mr. Olbermann may just be right about the importance of this bill, 
both to sports fans and to taxpayers. The bill closes a big loophole, a 
loophole that ultimately injures state and local governments and other 
issuers of tax-exempt bonds, that provides an unintended federal 
subsidy that contravenes Congressional intent, that underwrites bidding 
wars among cities battling for professional sports franchises, and that 
enriches persons who need no federal assistance whatsoever.
  A decade ago, I was much involved in the drafting of the Tax Reform 
Act of 1986. A major objective of that legislation was to simplify the 
Tax Code by eliminating a large number of loopholes that had come to be 
viewed as unfair because they primarily benefited small groups of 
taxpayers. One of the loopholes we sought to close in 1986 was one that 
permitted builders of professional sports facilities to use tax-exempt 
bonds. Mind, we had nothing against new stadium construction, but we 
made the judgment that scarce Federal resources could surely be used in 
ways that would better serve the public good. The increasing 
proliferation of tax-exempt bonds had driven up interest costs for 
financing roads, schools, libraries, and other governmental purposes, 
led to mounting revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury, caused an 
inefficient allocation of capital, and allowed wealthy taxpayers to 
shield a growing amount of their investment income from income tax by 
purchasing tax-exempt bonds. Thus, we expressly forbade use of 
``private activity'' bonds for sports facilities, intending to 
eliminate tax-exempt financing of these facilities altogether.
  Yet team owners, with help from clever tax counsel, soon recognized 
that the change could work to their advantage. As columnist Neal R. 
Pierce wrote, team owners ``were not checkmated for long. They were 
soon exhibiting the gall to ask mayors to finance their stadiums with 
[governmental] purpose bonds.'' Congress did not anticipate this. After 
all, by law, governmental bonds used to build stadiums would be tax-
exempt only if no more than 10 percent of the debt service is derived 
from stadium revenue sources. In other words, non-stadium governmental 
revenues (i.e., tax revenues, lottery proceeds, and the like) must be 
used to repay the bulk of the debt, freeing team owners to pocket 
stadium revenues. Who would have thought that local officials, in order 
to attract or retain a team, would capitulate to team owners--granting 
concessionary stadium leases and committing limited government revenues 
to repay stadium debt, thereby hindering their own ability to provide 
schools, roads and other public investments?
  The result has been a stadium construction boom unlike anything we 
have ever seen, and there is no end in sight.
  What is driving the demand for new stadiums? Mainly, team owners' 
bottom lines and rising player salaries. Although our existing stadiums 
are generally quite serviceable, team owners can generate greater 
income, increase their franchise values dramatically, and compete for 
high-priced free agents with new tax-subsidized, single-purpose 
stadiums equipped with luxury skyboxes, club seats and the like. Thus, 
using their monopoly power, owners threaten to move, forcing bidding 
wars among cities. End result: new, tax-subsidized stadiums with fancy 
amenities and sweetheart lease deals.
  To cite a case in point, Mr. Art Modell recently moved the Cleveland

[[Page 997]]

Browns professional football team from Cleveland to Baltimore to become 
the Ravens. Prior to relocating, Mr. Modell had said, ``I am not about 
to rape the City [of Cleveland] as others in my league have done. You 
will never hear me say `if I don't get this I'm moving.' You can go to 
press on that one. I couldn't live with myself if I did that.'' 
Obviously, Mr. Modell changed his mind. And why? An extraordinary 
stadium deal with the State of Maryland.
  The State of Maryland (and the local sports authority) provided the 
land on which the stadium is located, issued $87 million in tax-exempt 
bonds (yielding interest savings of approximately $60 million over a 
30-year period as compared to taxable bonds), and contributed $30 
million in cash and $64 million in state lottery revenues towards 
construction of the stadium. Mr. Modell agreed to contribute $24 
million toward the project and, in return, receives rent-free use of 
the stadium (the franchise pays only for the operating and maintenance 
costs), $65 million in sales of rights to purchase season tickets (so-
called ``personal seat licenses''), all revenues from selling the right 
to name the stadium, luxury suites, premium seats, in-part advertising, 
and concessions, and 50 percent of all revenues from stadium events 
other than Ravens' games (with the right to control the booking of 
those events).
  Financial World reported that the value of the Baltimore Ravens' 
franchise increased from $165 million in 1992 (i.e., before the move 
from Cleveland) to an estimated $250 million after its first season in 
the new stadium. It's little wonder that Mr. Modell stated: ``The pride 
and presence of a professional football team is far more important than 
30 libraries, and I say that with all due respect to the learning 
process.''
  Meanwhile, the city of Cleveland has been building a new, $225 
million stadium to house an expansion football team. When Mr. Modell 
decided to move his team to Baltimore, the NFL agreed to grant 
Cleveland a new football team with the same name: the Cleveland Browns. 
Most cities are not as fortunate when a team leaves.
  We are even reaching a point at which stadiums are being abandoned 
before they have been used for 10 to 15 years. An article in Barron's 
reported that a perception of ``economic obsolescence'' on the part of 
some owners has doomed even recently-built venues:

       The eight-year-old Miami Arena is facing a future without 
     its two major tenants, the Florida Panthers hockey team and 
     the Miami Heat basketball franchise, because of inadequate 
     seating capacity and a paucity of luxury suites. The Panthers 
     have already cut a deal to move to a new facility that nearby 
     Broward County is building for them at a cost of around $200 
     million. Plans call for Dade County to build a new $210 
     million arena before the end of the decade, despite the fact 
     that the move will leave local taxpayers stuck with servicing 
     the debt on two Miami arenas rather than just one.

  How do taxpayers benefit from all this? They don't. Ticket prices go 
way up--and stay up--after a new stadium opens. So while fans are asked 
to foot the bills through tax subsidies, many no longer can afford the 
price of admission. A study by Newsday found that ticket prices rose by 
32 percent in five new baseball stadiums, as compared to a major league 
average of 8 percent. Not to mention the refreshments and other 
concessions, which also cost more in the new venues.
  According to Barron's, the projects:

       . . . cater largely to well-heeled fans, meaning the folks 
     who can afford to pay for seats in glassed-in luxury boxes. 
     While the suit-and-cell-phone crowd get all the best seats, 
     the average taxpayer is cosigned to ``cheap seats'' in 
     nosebleed land or, more often, to following his favorite team 
     on television.

  Nor do these new stadiums provide much, if any, economic benefit to 
their local communities. Professors Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist 
recently published Sports, Jobs & Taxes with the Brookings Institution 
Press, in which they presented studies of the economic impact of 
professional sports facilities. The conclusion:

       [I]n every case, the authors find that the local economic 
     impact of sports teams and facilities is far smaller than 
     proponents allege; in some cases it is negative. These 
     findings are valid regardless of whether the benefits are 
     measured for the local neighborhood, for the city, or for the 
     entire metropolitan area in which a facility is located.

  Or, as concluded by Ronald D. Utt in his Heritage Foundation 
``Backgrounder'' Cities in Denial: The False Promise of Subsidized 
Tourist and Entertainment Complexes:

       As the record from around the country indicates, the 
     economic boost from public investment in entertainment 
     complexes is exceptionally modest at best, and 
     counterproductive at worst. It diverts scarce resources and 
     public attention from the less glamorous activities that make 
     more meaningful contributions to the public's well-being.

And what of the economic consequences to the communities abandoned by 
teams that relocate?
  Any job growth that does result is extremely expensive. The 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that the new $177 million 
football stadium for the Baltimore Ravens is expected to cost $127,000 
per job created. By contrast, the cost per job generated by Maryland's 
economic development program is just $6,250.
  Finally, Federal taxpayers receive absolutely no economic benefit for 
providing this subsidy. As CRS pointed out, ``Almost all stadium 
spending is spending that would have been made on other activities 
within the United States, which means that benefits to the nation as a 
whole are near zero.'' After all, these teams will invariably locate 
somewhere in the United States, it is just a matter of where. And 
should the federal taxpayers in the team's current home town be forced 
to pay for the team's new stadium in a new city? The answer is 
unmistakably no.
  Nevertheless, it seems that every day another professional sports 
team is demanding a new stadium, threatening a relocation if the demand 
is not met. This is a growing phenomenon. Professors Noll and Zimbalist 
wrote that:

       Between 1989 and 1997, thirty-one new stadiums and arenas 
     were built. At least thirty-nine additional teams are seeking 
     new facilities, are in the process of finalizing the deal to 
     build one, or are waiting to move into one.

When I first introduced legislation to address this issue in 1996, 
stadium bond issuance had already exceeded $1 billion per year. 
Issuance reached $1.8 billion in 1997, a 30 percent increase from 1996. 
The bonds issued during 1997 alone represent a federal taxpayer subsidy 
of approximately $300 million over 10 years. It seems safe to predict 
that stadium bond issuance continued to increase in 1998.
  In closing, one note about implementation of this legislation, should 
it be enacted. It might be considered unfair that some teams have new 
taxpayer-subsidized sports facilities, while other teams do not, all 
due to the arbitrary effective date of a change in the tax law. After 
all, why should some team owners be rewarded with a stadium subsidy 
while those owners who were reluctant to threaten relocation or to 
exploit unwarranted tax benefits do without? Congress could certainly 
provide appropriate transition rules--as it did in the 1986 Act when it 
first shut down tax-exempt stadium financing--to allow these latter 
teams stadium subsidies.
  What is clear is that we have got to do something about the explosion 
in tax-subsidized stadium construction, if not through this 
legislation, then through some other similar means. Perhaps Congress 
should consider some form of excise tax, or some limitation on use of 
bonds to situations that do not involve a relocating team. We could 
also consider requiring that stadium bonds be repaid by stadium 
revenues--or at the very least we could re-examine current law, which 
effectively prohibits such a use of stadium revenues. Or, we could 
consider tightening the prohibition on the use of tax-exempt bonds to 
finance luxury skyboxes so that it cannot be so easily circumvented.
  The STADIA bill would save about $50 million a year now spent to 
subsidize professional sports stadiums. The question for Congress is 
should we subsidize the commercial pursuits of wealthy team owners, 
encourage escalating player salaries, and underwrite bidding wars among 
cities seeking or fighting to keep professional sports teams, or would 
our scarce resources be

[[Page 998]]

put to better use? To my mind, this is not a difficult choice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 224

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Tax-Exempt Arena Debt 
     Issuance Act''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF PROFESSIONAL 
                   SPORTS FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining private activity bond and qualified bond) 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) 
     and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Certain Issues Used for Professional Sports 
     Facilities Treated as Private Activity Bonds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `private activity bond' includes any bond issued as part of 
     an issue if the amount of the proceeds of the issue which are 
     to be used (directly or indirectly) to provide professional 
     sports facilities exceeds the lesser of--
       ``(A) 5 percent of such proceeds, or
       ``(B) $5,000,000.
       ``(2) Bond not treated as a qualified bond.--For purposes 
     of this title, any bond described in paragraph (1) shall not 
     be a qualified bond.
       ``(3) Professional sports facilities.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `professional sports 
     facilities' means real property or related improvements used 
     for professional sports exhibitions, games, or training, 
     regardless if the admission of the public or press is allowed 
     or paid.
       ``(B) Use for professional sports.--Any use of facilities 
     which generates a direct or indirect monetary benefit (other 
     than reimbursement for out-of pocket expenses) for a person 
     who uses such facilities for professional sports exhibitions, 
     games, or training shall be treated as a use described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Anti-abuse regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this subsection, including such regulations 
     as may be appropriate to prevent avoidance of such purposes 
     through related persons, use of related facilities or 
     multiuse complexes, or otherwise.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (5), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     bonds issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception for construction, binding agreements, or 
     approved projects.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to bonds--
       (A) the proceeds of which are used for--
       (i) the construction or rehabilitation of a facility--

       (I) if such construction or rehabilitation began before 
     June 14, 1996, and was completed on or after such date, or
       (II) if a State or political subdivision thereof has 
     entered into a binding contract before June 14, 1996, that 
     requires the incurrence of significant expenditures for such 
     construction or rehabilitation, and some of such expenditures 
     are incurred on or after such date; or

       (ii) the acquisition of a facility pursuant to a binding 
     contract entered into by a State or political subdivision 
     thereof before June 14, 1996, and
       (B) which are the subject of an official action taken by 
     relevant government officials before June 14, 1996--
       (i) approving the issuance of such bonds, or
       (ii) approving the submission of the approval of such 
     issuance to a voter referendum.
       (3) Exception for final bond resolutions.--The amendments 
     made by this section shall not apply to bonds the proceeds of 
     which are used for the construction or rehabilitation of a 
     facility if a State or political subdivision thereof has 
     completed all necessary governmental approvals for the 
     issuance of such bonds before June 14, 1996.
       (4) Significant expenditures.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i)(II), the term ``significant expenditures'' means 
     expenditures equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the 
     reasonably anticipated cost of the construction or 
     rehabilitation of the facility involved.
       (5) Exception for certain current refundings.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to any bond the proceeds of which are used 
     exclusively to refund a qualified bond (or a bond which is a 
     part of a series of refundings of a qualified bond) if--
       (i) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
     outstanding principal amount of the refunded bond,
       (ii) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
     refunding bond is a part is not later than the average 
     maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue, and
       (iii) the net proceeds of the refunding bond are used to 
     redeem the refunded bond not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the issuance of the refunding bond.

     For purposes of clause (ii), average maturity shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (B) Qualified bond.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term ``qualified bond'' means any tax-exempt bond to finance 
     a professional sports facility (as defined in section 
     141(e)(3) of such Code, as added by subsection (a)) issued 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 225. A bill to provide housing assistance to Native Hawaiians; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


   THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 
                               AMENDMENTS

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure which 
passed in the Senate toward the close of the 105th session of the 
Congress to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act to provide Federal housing assistance to address the 
serious unmet housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
  Mr. President, the primary objective of this measure is to enable 
Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands 
to have access to federal housing assistance that is currently provided 
to other eligible low-income American families based upon documented 
need.
  In 1920, with the enactment of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the 
United States set aside approximately 200,000 acres of public land that 
had been ceded to the United States in what was then the Territory of 
Hawaii to establish a permanent homeland for the native people of 
Hawaii, based upon findings of the Congress that Native Hawaiians were 
a landless people and a ``dying'' people. The Secretary of the 
Interior, Franklin Lane, likened the relationship between the United 
States and Native Hawaiians to the guardian-ward relationship that then 
existed between the United States and American Indians.
  As a condition of its admission into the Union of States in 1959, the 
United States transferred title to the 200,000 acres of land to the 
State of Hawaii with the requirement that the lands be held ``in public 
trust'' for ``the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as 
defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920''. The Hawaii 
Admissions Act also required that the Hawaii State Constitution provide 
for the assumption by the new State of a trust responsibility for the 
lands. The lands are now administered by a State agency, the Department 
of Hawaiian Home Lands.
  However, similar to the responsibility with which the Secretary of 
the Interior is charged in the administration of Indian lands, the 
United States retained and continues to retain the exclusive authority 
to enforce the trust and to institute legal action against the State of 
Hawaii for any breach of the trust, as well as the exclusive right to 
consent to any actions affecting the lands which comprise the corpus of 
the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 
enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting the rights 
of the beneficiaries under the Act.
  Within the last several years, three recent studies have documented 
the housing conditions that confront Native Hawaiians who either reside 
on the Hawaiian home lands or who are eligible to reside on the home 
lands.
  In 1992, the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, 
and Native Hawaiian Housing issued its final report to the Congress, 
``Building the Future: A Blueprint for Change''. The Commission's Study 
compared housing data for Native Hawaiians with housing information for 
other citizens in the State of Hawaii. The Commission found that Native 
Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, lacked access to 
conventional financing because of the trust status of the Hawaiian home 
lands, and that Native Hawaiians had the worst housing conditions in 
the State of Hawaii and

[[Page 999]]

the highest percentage of homelessness, representing over 30 percent of 
the State's homeless population.
  The Commission concluded that the unique circumstances of Native 
Hawaiians require the enactment of new legislation to alleviate and 
address the severe housing needs of Native Hawaiians, and recommended 
that the Congress extend to Native Hawaiians the same federal housing 
assistance programs that are provided to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives under the Low-Income Rental, Mutual Help, Loan Guarantee 
Program and Community Development Block Grant programs. Subsequently, 
the Community Development Block Grant program authority was amended to 
address the housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
  In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
issued a report entitled, ``Housing Problems and Needs of Native 
Hawaiians''. The HUD report was particularly helpful because it 
compared the data on Native Hawaiian housing conditions with housing 
conditions nationally and with the housing conditions of American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.
  The most alarming finding of the HUD report was that Native Hawaiians 
experience the highest percentage of housing problems in the nation--49 
percent--higher than even that of American Indians and Alaska Natives 
residing on reservations (44 percent) and substantially higher than 
that of all U.S. households (27 percent). Additionally, the HUD study 
found that the percentage of overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian 
population is 36 percent as compared to 3 percent for all other 
households in the United States.
  Applying the HUD guidelines, 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who 
either reside or who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands 
have incomes which fall below the median family income in the United 
States, and 50 percent of those Native Hawaiians have incomes below 30 
percent of the median family income in the United States.
  Also in 1995, the Hawaii State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
published a Beneficiary Needs Study as a result of research conducted 
by an independent research group. This study found that among the 
Native Hawaiian population, the needs of Native Hawaiians eligible to 
reside on the Hawaiian home lands are the most severe--with 95 percent 
of home lands applicants (16,000) in need of housing, and with one-half 
of those applicant households facing overcrowding and one-third paying 
more than 30 percent of their income for shelter.
  Eligibility for an assignment of Hawaiian home lands for purposes of 
housing, agricultural development or pasture land is a function of 
federal law--the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. There are 
approximately 60,000 Native Hawaiians who would be eligible to reside 
on the home lands, but applying for an assignment of a parcel of home 
lands is voluntary. Because of the lack of resources to develop 
infrastructure (roads, access to water and sewer and electricity) on 
the home lands as required by State and county laws before housing can 
be constructed, hundreds of Native Hawaiians on the waiting list have 
died before receiving an assignment of home lands.
  Once an eligible Native Hawaiian reaches the top of the waiting list, 
he or she must be able to qualify for a private home loan mortgage, 
because the limited Federal and State funds available to the Department 
of Hawaiian Home Lands have been used to develop infrastructure rather 
than the construction of housing. An assignment of home lands property 
is in the form of a 99-year lease. Unless the heirs of the eligible 
Native Hawaiian qualify in their own right for an assignment of home 
lands under the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, upon 
the death of the eligible Native Hawaiian, the heirs must move off the 
land.
  Currently, Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the home 
lands but who do not qualify for private mortgage loans do not have 
access to federal housing assistance programs that provide assistance 
to low-income families. This is due to the fact that for many years, 
the federal government took the legal position that because the 
government that represented the Native Hawaiian people had been 
overthrown in 1893 and thus there was no government-to-government 
relationship with the United States, extending federal housing program 
assistance to lands set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians would be 
discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.
  The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act not only provides authority for the 
assignment of home lands property to Native Hawaiians. The Act also 
authorizes general leases to non-Hawaiians. At the time the Act was 
passed by the Congress, it was anticipated that revenues derived from 
general leases would be sufficient to develop the necessary 
infrastructure and housing on the home lands. However, general lease 
revenue has not proven sufficient to address infrastructure and housing 
needs.
  In recent years, as a result of litigation involving third-party 
leases of Hawaiian home lands, the United States revisited its legal 
position and found that the authority contained in the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act for general leases to non-Hawaiians meant that the land 
was not set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians. The non-exclusive 
nature of the land set aside was thus found not to violate 
Constitutional prohibitions on racial discrimination.
  The change in the United States' legal position may be further 
informed by the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rice v. 
Cayetano, No. 97-16095, 146 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1998) in which the 
Appeals Court compared the special treatment of Native Hawaiians to the 
special treatment of Indians that the Supreme Court approved in Morton 
v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) and cited its reference to Mancari in 
Alaska Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. Pierce, 694 F.2d 1162 
(9th Cir. 1981), in which the Circuit Court expressed its finding that 
preferential treatment that is grounded in the government's unique 
obligation toward Indians is a political rather than a racial 
classification, even though racial criteria may be used in defining 
eligibility.
  However, the result of the United States' earlier legal position was 
that Native Hawaiians who were eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home 
Lands and would have otherwise been eligible by virtue of their low-
income status to apply for Federal housing assistance were foreclosed 
from participating in Federal housing assistance programs that were 
available to all other eligible families in the United States.
  Mr. President, if enacted into law, the measure which I introduce 
today will finally provide some relief and support to those who are in 
the greatest need for a simple roof over their heads and a place to 
raise their families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has undertaken a responsibility to 
     promote the general welfare of the United States by--
       (A) employing its resources to remedy the unsafe and 
     unsanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of 
     decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower 
     income; and
       (B) developing effective partnerships with governmental and 
     private entities to accomplish the objectives referred to in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (2) pursuant to the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), the United 
     States set aside 200,000 acres of land in the Federal 
     territory that later became the State of Hawaii in order to 
     establish a homeland for the native people of Hawaii--Native 
     Hawaiians;
       (3) despite the intent of Congress in 1920 to address the 
     housing needs of Native Hawaiians through the enactment of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et

[[Page 1000]]

     seq.), some agencies of the Federal Government have taken the 
     legal position that subsequently enacted Federal housing laws 
     designed to address the housing needs of all eligible 
     families in the United States could not be extended to 
     address the needs for housing and infrastructure development 
     on Hawaiian home lands (as that term is defined in section 
     801 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act) 
     with the result that otherwise eligible Native Hawaiians 
     residing on the Hawaiian home lands have been foreclosed from 
     participating in Federal housing assistance programs 
     available to all other eligible families in the United 
     States;
       (4) although Federal housing assistance programs have been 
     administered on a racially neutral basis in the State of 
     Hawaii, Native Hawaiians continue to have the greatest unmet 
     need for housing and the highest rates of overcrowding in the 
     United States;
       (5) among the Native American population of the United 
     States, Native Hawaiians experience the highest percentage of 
     housing problems in the United States, as the percentage--
       (A) of housing problems in the Native Hawaiian population 
     is 49 percent, as compared to--
       (i) 44 percent for American Indian and Alaska Native 
     households in Indian country; and
       (ii) 27 percent for all other households in the United 
     States; and
       (B) overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian population is 36 
     percent as compared to 3 percent for all other households in 
     the United States;
       (6) among the Native Hawaiian population, the needs of 
     Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined in section 801 of 
     the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
     Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act, eligible to 
     reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands are the most severe, as--
       (A) the percentage of overcrowding in Native Hawaiian 
     households on the Hawaiian Home Lands is 36 percent; and
       (B) approximately 13,000 Native Hawaiians, which constitute 
     95 percent of the Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside 
     on the Hawaiian Home Lands, are in need of housing;
       (7) applying the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development guidelines--
       (A) 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or 
     who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     incomes that fall below the median family income; and
       (B) 50 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or who 
     are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     incomes below 30 percent of the median family income; and
       (8) \1/3\ of those Native Hawaiians who are eligible to 
     reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands pay more than 30 percent of 
     their income for shelter, and \1/2\ of those Native Hawaiians 
     face overcrowding;
       (9) the extraordinarily severe housing needs of Native 
     Hawaiians demonstrate that Native Hawaiians who either reside 
     on, or are eligible to reside on, Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     been denied equal access to Federal low-income housing 
     assistance programs available to other qualified residents of 
     the United States, and that a more effective means of 
     addressing their housing needs must be authorized;
       (10) consistent with the recommendations of the National 
     Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 
     Hawaiian Housing, and in order to address the continuing 
     prevalence of extraordinarily severe housing needs among 
     Native Hawaiians who either reside or are eligible to reside 
     on the Hawaiian Home Lands, Congress finds it necessary to 
     extend the Federal low-income housing assistance available to 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives under the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 
     U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) to those Native Hawaiians;
       (11) under the treatymaking power of the United States, 
     Congress had the authority to confirm a treaty between the 
     United States and the government that represented the 
     Hawaiian people under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of 
     the Constitution, the authority of Congress to address 
     matters affecting the indigenous peoples of the United States 
     includes the authority to address matters affecting Native 
     Hawaiians;
       (12) through treaties, Federal statutes, and rulings of the 
     Federal courts, the United States has recognized and 
     reaffirmed that--
       (A) the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable 
     to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
       (B) the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States 
     have--
       (i) a continuing right to autonomy in their internal 
     affairs; and
       (ii) an ongoing right of self-determination and self-
     governance that has never been extinguished;
       (13) the political relationship between the United States 
     and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and 
     reaffirmed by the United States as evidenced by the inclusion 
     of Native Hawaiians in--
       (A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     2291 et seq.);
       (B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1996 et seq.);
       (C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 
     U.S.C. 80q et seq.);
       (D) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (E) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (F) the Native American Languages Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
     3434);
       (G) the American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
     Culture and Arts Development Act (20 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.);
       (H) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et 
     seq.); and
       (I) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.); and
       (14) in the area of housing, the United States has 
     recognized and reaffirmed the political relationship with the 
     Native Hawaiian people through--
       (A) the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 
     1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), which set aside approximately 
     200,000 acres of public lands that became known as Hawaiian 
     Home Lands in the Territory of Hawaii that had been ceded to 
     the United States for homesteading by Native Hawaiians in 
     order to rehabilitate a landless and dying people;
       (B) the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', 
     approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4)--
       (i) by ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public 
     lands formerly held by the United States, and mandating that 
     those lands be held in public trust, for the betterment of 
     the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined 
     in section 801(15) of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of 
     this Act; and
       (ii) by transferring what the United States considered to 
     be a trust responsibility for the administration of Hawaiian 
     Home Lands to the State of Hawaii, but retaining the 
     authority to enforce the trust, including the exclusive right 
     of the United States to consent to any actions affecting the 
     lands which comprise the corpus of the trust and any 
     amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 
     Stat. 108 et seq.), enacted by the legislature of the State 
     of Hawaii affecting the rights of beneficiaries under the 
     Act;
       (C) the authorization of mortgage loans insured by the 
     Federal Housing Administration for the purchase, 
     construction, or refinancing of homes on Hawaiian Home Lands 
     under the Act of June 27, 1934 (commonly referred to as the 
     ``National Housing Act'' (42 Stat. 1246 et seq., chapter 847; 
     12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
       (D) authorizing Native Hawaiian representation on the 
     National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and 
     Native Hawaiian Housing under Public Law 101-235;
       (E) the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in the definition 
     under section 3764 of title 38, United States Code, 
     applicable to subchapter V of chapter 37- of title 38, United 
     States Code (relating to a housing loan program for Native 
     American veterans); and
       (F) the enactment of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act 
     (109 Stat. 357; 48 U.S.C. 491, note prec.) which establishes 
     a process for the conveyance of Federal lands to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands that are equivalent in 
     value to lands acquired by the United States from the 
     Hawaiian Home Lands inventory.

     SEC. 3. HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
         ``TITLE VIII--HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

     ``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands; department.--The 
     term `Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' or `Department' 
     means the agency or department of the government of the State 
     of Hawaii that is responsible for the administration of the 
     Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.).
       ``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(3) Elderly families; near-elderly families.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `elderly family' or `near-
     elderly family' means a family whose head (or his or her 
     spouse), or whose sole member, is--
       ``(i) for an elderly family, an elderly person; or
       ``(ii) for a near-elderly family, a near-elderly person.
       ``(B) Certain families included.--The term `elderly family' 
     or `near-elderly family' includes--
       ``(i) 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly persons, as 
     the case may be, living together; and
       ``(ii) 1 or more persons described in clause (i) living 
     with 1 or more persons determined under the housing plan to 
     be essential to their care or well-being.
       ``(4) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands' 
     means lands that--
       ``(A) have the status as Hawaiian home lands under section 
     204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
       ``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
       ``(5) Housing area.--The term `housing area' means an area 
     of Hawaiian Home

[[Page 1001]]

     Lands with respect to which the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands is authorized to provide assistance for affordable 
     housing under this Act.
       ``(6) Housing entity.--The term `housing entity' means the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(7) Housing plan.--The term `housing plan' means a plan 
     developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(8) Median income.--The term `median income' means, with 
     respect to an area that is a Hawaiian housing area, the 
     greater of--
       ``(A) the median income for the Hawaiian housing area, 
     which shall be determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(B) the median income for the State of Hawaii.
       ``(9) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the 
     meaning given the term `Native Hawaiian' in section 201 of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et 
     seq.).

     ``SEC. 802. BLOCK GRANTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Grant Authority.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall (to the extent amounts are made available to carry out 
     this title) make a grant under this title to the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands to carry out affordable housing 
     activities for Native Hawaiian families on or near Hawaiian 
     Home Lands.
       ``(b) Plan Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under 
     this title to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for a 
     fiscal year only if--
       ``(A) the Director has submitted to the Secretary a housing 
     plan for that fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the Secretary has determined under section 804 that 
     the housing plan complies with the requirements of section 
     803.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the applicability of 
     the requirements under paragraph (1), in part, if the 
     Secretary finds that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
     has not complied or cannot comply with those requirements due 
     to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(c) Use of Affordable Housing Activities Under Plan.--
     Except as provided in subsection (e), amounts provided under 
     a grant under this section may be used only for affordable 
     housing activities under this title that are consistent with 
     a housing plan approved under section 804.
       ``(d) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     authorize the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to use a 
     percentage of any grant amounts received under this title for 
     any reasonable administrative and planning expenses of the 
     Department relating to carrying out this title and activities 
     assisted with those amounts.
       ``(2) Administrative and planning expenses.--The 
     administrative and planning expenses referred to in paragraph 
     (1) include--
       ``(A) costs for salaries of individuals engaged in 
     administering and managing affordable housing activities 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
       ``(B) expenses incurred in preparing a housing plan under 
     section 803.
       ``(e) Public-Private Partnerships.--The Director shall make 
     all reasonable efforts, consistent with the purposes of this 
     title, to maximize participation by the private sector, 
     including nonprofit organizations and for-profit entities, in 
     implementing a housing plan that has been approved by the 
     Secretary under section 803.
       ``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall be guided by the 
     relevant program requirements of titles I, II, and IV in the 
     implementation of housing assistance programs for Native 
     Hawaiians under this title.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may make exceptions to, or 
     modifications of, program requirements for Native American 
     housing assistance set forth in titles I, II, and IV as 
     necessary and appropriate to meet the unique situation and 
     housing needs of Native Hawaiians.

     ``SEC. 803. HOUSING PLAN.

       ``(a) Plan Submission.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) require the Director to submit a housing plan under 
     this section for each fiscal year; and
       ``(2) provide for the review of each plan submitted under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(b) 5-Year Plan.--Each housing plan under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) contain, with respect to the 5-year period beginning 
     with the fiscal year for which the plan is submitted, the 
     following information:
       ``(A) Mission statement.--A general statement of the 
     mission of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to serve the 
     needs of the low-income families to be served by the 
     Department.
       ``(B) Goal and objectives.--A statement of the goals and 
     objectives of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to enable 
     the Department to serve the needs identified in subparagraph 
     (A) during the period.
       ``(C) Activities plans.--An overview of the activities 
     planned during the period including an analysis of the manner 
     in which the activities will enable the Department to meet 
     its mission, goals, and objectives.
       ``(c) 1-Year Plan.--A housing plan under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) contain the following information relating to the 
     fiscal year for which the assistance under this title is to 
     be made available:
       ``(A) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and 
     objectives to be accomplished during the period covered by 
     the plan.
       ``(B) Statement of needs.--A statement of the housing needs 
     of the low-income families served by the Department and the 
     means by which those needs will be addressed during the 
     period covered by the plan, including--
       ``(i) a description of the estimated housing needs and the 
     need for assistance for the low-income families to be served 
     by the Department, including a description of the manner in 
     which the geographical distribution of assistance is 
     consistent with--

       ``(I) the geographical needs of those families; and
       ``(II) needs for various categories of housing assistance; 
     and

       ``(ii) a description of the estimated housing needs for all 
     families to be served by the Department.
       ``(C) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, in a form prescribed by 
     the Secretary, that includes--
       ``(i) an identification and a description of the financial 
     resources reasonably available to the Department to carry out 
     the purposes of this title, including an explanation of the 
     manner in which amounts made available will be used to 
     leverage additional resources; and
       ``(ii) the uses to which the resources described in clause 
     (i) will be committed, including--

       ``(I) eligible and required affordable housing activities; 
     and
       ``(II) administrative expenses.

       ``(D) Affordable housing resources.--A statement of the 
     affordable housing resources currently available at the time 
     of the submittal of the plan and to be made available during 
     the period covered by the plan, including--
       ``(i) a description of the significant characteristics of 
     the housing market in the State of Hawaii, including the 
     availability of housing from other public sources, private 
     market housing; and
       ``(ii) the manner in which the characteristics referred to 
     in clause (i) influence the decision of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands to use grant amounts to be provided under 
     this title for--

       ``(I) rental assistance;
       ``(II) the production of new units;
       ``(III) the acquisition of existing units; or
       ``(IV) the rehabilitation of units;

       ``(iii) a description of the structure, coordination, and 
     means of cooperation between the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands and any other governmental entities in the development, 
     submission, or implementation of housing plans, including a 
     description of--

       ``(I) the involvement of private, public, and nonprofit 
     organizations and institutions;
       ``(II) the use of loan guarantees under section 184A of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992; and
       ``(III) other housing assistance provided by the United 
     States, including loans, grants, and mortgage insurance;

       ``(iv) a description of the manner in which the plan will 
     address the needs identified pursuant to subparagraph (C);
       ``(v) a description of--

       ``(I) any existing or anticipated homeownership programs 
     and rental programs to be carried out during the period 
     covered by the plan; and
       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the 
     programs referred to in subclause (I);

       ``(vi) a description of--

       ``(I) any existing or anticipated housing rehabilitation 
     programs necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the 
     housing to be carried out during the period covered by the 
     plan; and
       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the 
     programs referred to in subclause (I);

       ``(vii) a description of--

       ``(I) all other existing or anticipated housing assistance 
     provided by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands during the 
     period covered by the plan, including--

       ``(aa) transitional housing;
       ``(bb) homeless housing;
       ``(cc) college housing; and
       ``(dd) supportive services housing; and

       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under such 
     programs;

       ``(viii)(I) a description of any housing to be demolished 
     or disposed of;
       ``(II) a timetable for that demolition or disposition; and
       ``(III) any other information required by the Secretary 
     with respect to that demolition or disposition;
       ``(ix) a description of the manner in which the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands will coordinate with welfare agencies 
     in the State of Hawaii to ensure that residents of

[[Page 1002]]

     the affordable housing will be provided with access to 
     resources to assist in obtaining employment and achieving 
     self-sufficiency;
       ``(x) a description of the requirements established by the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to--

       ``(I) promote the safety of residents of the affordable 
     housing;
       ``(II) facilitate the undertaking of crime prevention 
     measures;
       ``(III) allow resident input and involvement, including the 
     establishment of resident organizations; and
       ``(IV) allow for the coordination of crime prevention 
     activities between the Department and local law enforcement 
     officials; and

       ``(xi) a description of the entities that will carry out 
     the activities under the plan, including the organizational 
     capacity and key personnel of the entities.
       ``(E) Certification of compliance.--Evidence of compliance 
     that shall include, as appropriate--
       ``(i) a certification that the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands will comply with--

       ``(I) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.) or with title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) in carrying out this title, to 
     the extent that such title is applicable; and
       ``(II) other applicable Federal statutes;

       ``(ii) a certification that the Department will require 
     adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned 
     and operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under 
     this title, in compliance with such requirements as may be 
     established by the Secretary;
       ``(iii) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing the eligibility, admission, and occupancy of 
     families for housing assisted with grant amounts provided 
     under this title;
       ``(iv) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing rents charged, including the methods by which such 
     rents or homebuyer payments are determined, for housing 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
       ``(v) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing the management and maintenance of housing assisted 
     with grant amounts provided under this title.
       ``(d) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that the requirements of 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et 
     seq.) or of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to assistance provided under this 
     title, nothing in the requirements concerning discrimination 
     on the basis of race shall be construed to prevent the 
     provision of assistance under this title--
       ``(A) to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on the basis 
     that the Department served Native Hawaiians; or
       ``(B) to an eligible family on the basis that the family is 
     a Native Hawaiian family.
       ``(2) Civil rights.--Program eligibility under this title 
     may be restricted to Native Hawaiians. Subject to the 
     preceding sentence, no person may be discriminated against on 
     the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 
     familial status, or disability.
       ``(e) Use of Nonprofit Organizations.--As a condition of 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands shall, to the extent practicable, provide 
     for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with 
     those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 804. REVIEW OF PLANS.

       ``(a) Review and Notice.--
       ``(1) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
     a housing plan submitted to the Secretary under section 803 
     to ensure that the plan complies with the requirements of 
     that section.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall have the discretion 
     to review a plan referred to in subparagraph (A) only to the 
     extent that the Secretary considers that the review is 
     necessary.
       ``(2) Notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a 
     plan under section 803, the Secretary shall notify the 
     Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands whether the 
     plan complies with the requirements under that section.
       ``(B) Effect of failure of secretary to take action.--For 
     purposes of this title, if the Secretary does not notify the 
     Director, as required under this subsection and subsection 
     (b), upon the expiration of the 60-day period described in 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the plan shall be considered to have been determined 
     to comply with the requirements under section 803; and
       ``(ii) the Director shall be considered to have been 
     notified of compliance.
       ``(b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of 
     Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a plan 
     submitted under section 803 does not comply with the 
     requirements of that section, the Secretary shall specify in 
     the notice under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) the reasons for noncompliance; and
       ``(2) any modifications necessary for the plan to meet the 
     requirements of section 803.
       ``(c) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--After the Director of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands submits a housing plan under section 803, 
     or any amendment or modification to the plan to the 
     Secretary, to the extent that the Secretary considers such 
     action to be necessary to make a determination under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall review the plan (including 
     any amendments or modifications thereto) to determine whether 
     the contents of the plan--
       ``(A) set forth the information required by section 803 to 
     be contained in the housing plan;
       ``(B) are consistent with information and data available to 
     the Secretary; and
       ``(C) are not prohibited by or inconsistent with any 
     provision of this Act or any other applicable law.
       ``(2) Incomplete plans.--If the Secretary determines under 
     this subsection that any of the appropriate certifications 
     required under section 803(c)(2)(E) are not included in a 
     plan, the plan shall be considered to be incomplete.
       ``(d) Updates to Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), after a plan 
     under section 803 has been submitted for a fiscal year, the 
     head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may comply with 
     the provisions of that section for any succeeding fiscal year 
     (with respect to information included for the 5-year period 
     under section 803(b) or for the 1-year period under section 
     803(c)) by submitting only such information regarding such 
     changes as may be necessary to update the plan previously 
     submitted.
       ``(2) Complete plans.--The Director shall submit a complete 
     plan under section 803 not later than 4 years after 
     submitting an initial plan under that section, and not less 
     frequently than every 4 years thereafter.
       ``(e) Effective Date.--This section and section 803 shall 
     take effect on the date provided by the Secretary pursuant to 
     section 807(a) to provide for timely submission and review of 
     the housing plan as necessary for the provision of assistance 
     under this title for fiscal year 2000.

     ``SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF PROGRAM INCOME AND LABOR STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Program Income.--
       ``(1) Authority to retain.--The Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands may retain any program income that is realized from any 
     grant amounts received by the Department under this title 
     if--
       ``(A) that income was realized after the initial 
     disbursement of the grant amounts received by the Department; 
     and
       ``(B) the Director agrees to use the program income for 
     affordable housing activities in accordance with the 
     provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Prohibition of reduction of grant.--The Secretary may 
     not reduce the grant amount for the Department of Hawaiian 
     Home Lands based solely on--
       ``(A) whether the Department retains program income under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) the amount of any such program income retained.
       ``(3) Exclusion of amounts.--The Secretary may, by 
     regulation, exclude from consideration as program income any 
     amounts determined to be so small that compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection would create an unreasonable 
     administrative burden on the Department.
       ``(b) Labor Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any contract or agreement for 
     assistance, sale, or lease pursuant to this title shall 
     contain--
       ``(A) a provision requiring that an amount not less than 
     the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or 
     adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State 
     or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all 
     architects, technical engineers, draftsmen, technicians 
     employed in the development and all maintenance, and laborers 
     and mechanics employed in the operation, of the affordable 
     housing project involved; and
       ``(B) a provision that an amount not less than the wages 
     prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary 
     of Labor pursuant to the Act commonly known as the `Davis-
     Bacon Act' (46 Stat. 1494, chapter 411; 40 U.S.C. 276a et 
     seq.) shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed in 
     the development of the affordable housing involved.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) and provisions relating to 
     wages required under paragraph (1) in any contract or 
     agreement for assistance, sale, or lease under this title, 
     shall not apply to any individual who performs the services 
     for which the individual volunteered and who is not otherwise 
     employed at any time in the construction work and received no 
     compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a 
     nominal fee for those services.

     ``SEC. 806. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Release of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the 
     alternative environmental protection procedures described in 
     subparagraph (B) in order to ensure--
       ``(i) that the policies of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321

[[Page 1003]]

      et seq.) and other provisions of law that further the 
     purposes of such Act (as specified in regulations issued by 
     the Secretary) are most effectively implemented in connection 
     with the expenditure of grant amounts provided under this 
     title; and
       ``(ii) to the public undiminished protection of the 
     environment.
       ``(B) Alternative environmental protection procedure.--In 
     lieu of applying environmental protection procedures 
     otherwise applicable, the Secretary may by regulation provide 
     for the release of funds for specific projects to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands if the Director of the 
     Department assumes all of the responsibilities for 
     environmental review, decisionmaking, and action under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), and such other provisions of law as the regulations of 
     the Secretary specify, that would apply to the Secretary were 
     the Secretary to undertake those projects as Federal 
     projects.
       ``(2) Regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations to 
     carry out this section only after consultation with the 
     Council on Environmental Quality.
       ``(B) Contents.--The regulations issued under this 
     paragraph shall--
       ``(i) provide for the monitoring of the environmental 
     reviews performed under this section;
       ``(ii) in the discretion of the Secretary, facilitate 
     training for the performance of such reviews; and
       ``(iii) provide for the suspension or termination of the 
     assumption of responsibilities under this section.
       ``(3) Effect on assumed responsibility.--The duty of the 
     Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) shall not be construed to 
     limit or reduce any responsibility assumed by the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands for grant amounts with respect to any 
     specific release of funds.
       ``(b) Procedure.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall authorize the 
     release of funds subject to the procedures under this section 
     only if, not less than 15 days before that approval and 
     before any commitment of funds to such projects, the Director 
     of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands submits to the 
     Secretary a request for such release accompanied by a 
     certification that meets the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(2) Effect of approval.--The approval of the Secretary of 
     a certification described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to 
     satisfy the responsibilities of the Secretary under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and such other provisions of law as the regulations of 
     the Secretary specify to the extent that those 
     responsibilities relate to the releases of funds for projects 
     that are covered by that certification.
       ``(c) Certification.--A certification under the procedures 
     under this section shall--
       ``(1) be in a form acceptable to the Secretary;
       ``(2) be executed by the Director of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands;
       ``(3) specify that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
     has fully carried out its responsibilities as described under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(4) specify that the Director--
       ``(A) consents to assume the status of a responsible 
     Federal official under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and each provision of law 
     specified in regulations issued by the Secretary to the 
     extent that those laws apply by reason of subsection (a); and
       ``(B) is authorized and consents on behalf of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Director to accept 
     the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of 
     enforcement of the responsibilities of the Director of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as such an official.

     ``SEC. 807. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall issue final regulations necessary to 
     carry out this title not later than October 1, 1999.

     ``SEC. 808. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``Except as otherwise expressly provided in this title, 
     this title shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     ``SEC. 809. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) National Objectives and Eligible Families.--
       ``(1) Primary objective.--The national objectives of this 
     title are--
       ``(A) to assist and promote affordable housing activities 
     to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing in safe 
     and healthy environments for occupancy by low-income Native 
     Hawaiian families;
       ``(B) to ensure better access to private mortgage markets 
     and to promote self-sufficiency of low-income Native Hawaiian 
     families;
       ``(C) to coordinate activities to provide housing for low-
     income Native Hawaiian families with Federal, State and local 
     activities to further economic and community development;
       ``(D) to plan for and integrate infrastructure resources on 
     the Hawaiian Home Lands with housing development; and
       ``(E) to--
       ``(i) promote the development of private capital markets; 
     and
       ``(ii) allow the markets referred to in clause (i) to 
     operate and grow, thereby benefiting Native Hawaiian 
     communities.
       ``(2) Eligible families.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph 
     (B), assistance for eligible housing activities under this 
     title shall be limited to low-income Native Hawaiian 
     families.
       ``(B) Exception to low-income requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Director may provide assistance for 
     homeownership activities under--

       ``(I) section 810(b);
       ``(II) model activities under section 810(f); or
       ``(III) loan guarantee activities under section 184A of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to Native 
     Hawaiian families who are not low-income families, to the 
     extent that the Secretary approves the activities under that 
     section to address a need for housing for those families that 
     cannot be reasonably met without that assistance.

       ``(ii) Limitations.--The Secretary shall establish 
     limitations on the amount of assistance that may be provided 
     under this title for activities for families that are not 
     low-income families.
       ``(C) Other families.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Director may provide housing or housing assistance provided 
     through affordable housing activities assisted with grant 
     amounts under this title to a family that is not composed of 
     Native Hawaiians if--
       ``(i) the Department determines that the presence of the 
     family in the housing involved is essential to the well-being 
     of Native Hawaiian families; and
       ``(ii) the need for housing for the family cannot be 
     reasonably met without the assistance.
       ``(D) Preference.--
       ``(i) In general.--A housing plan submitted under section 
     803 may authorize a preference, for housing or housing 
     assistance provided through affordable housing activities 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title to be 
     provided, to the extent practicable, to families that are 
     eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(ii) Application.--In any case in which a housing plan 
     provides for preference described in clause (i), the Director 
     shall ensure that housing activities that are assisted with 
     grant amounts under this title are subject to that 
     preference.
       ``(E) Use of nonprofit organizations.--As a condition of 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands, shall to the extent practicable, provide 
     for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with 
     those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 810. ELIGIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Affordable housing activities under this 
     section are activities conducted in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 811 to--
       ``(1) develop or to support affordable housing for rental 
     or homeownership; or
       ``(2) provide housing services with respect to affordable 
     housing, through the activities described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Activities.--The activities described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       ``(1) Development.--The acquisition, new construction, 
     reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of 
     affordable housing, which may include--
       ``(A) real property acquisition;
       ``(B) site improvement;
       ``(C) the development of utilities and utility services;
       ``(D) conversion;
       ``(E) demolition;
       ``(F) financing;
       ``(G) administration and planning; and
       ``(H) other related activities.
       ``(2) Housing services.--The provision of housing-related 
     services for affordable housing, including--
       ``(A) housing counseling in connection with rental or 
     homeownership assistance;
       ``(B) the establishment and support of resident 
     organizations and resident management corporations;
       ``(C) energy auditing;
       ``(D) activities related to the provisions of self-
     sufficiency and other services; and
       ``(E) other services related to assisting owners, tenants, 
     contractors, and other entities participating or seeking to 
     participate in other housing activities assisted pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(3) Housing management services.--The provision of 
     management services for affordable housing, including--
       ``(A) the preparation of work specifications;
       ``(B) loan processing;
       ``(C) inspections;
       ``(D) tenant selection;
       ``(E) management of tenant-based rental assistance; and
       ``(F) management of affordable housing projects.
       ``(4) Crime prevention and safety activities.--The 
     provision of safety, security, and

[[Page 1004]]

     law enforcement measures and activities appropriate to 
     protect residents of affordable housing from crime.
       ``(5) Model activities.--Housing activities under model 
     programs that are--
       ``(A) designed to carry out the purposes of this title; and
       ``(B) specifically approved by the Secretary as appropriate 
     for the purpose referred to in subparagraph (A).

     ``SEC. 811. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Rents.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Subject to paragraph (2), as a 
     condition to receiving grant amounts under this title, the 
     Director shall develop written policies governing rents and 
     homebuyer payments charged for dwelling units assisted under 
     this title, including methods by which such rents and 
     homebuyer payments are determined.
       ``(2) Maximum rent.--In the case of any low-income family 
     residing in a dwelling unit assisted with grant amounts under 
     this title, the monthly rent or homebuyer payment (as 
     applicable) for that dwelling unit may not exceed 30 percent 
     of the monthly adjusted income of that family.
       ``(b) Maintenance and Efficient Operation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall, using amounts of any 
     grants received under this title, reserve and use for 
     operating under section 810 such amounts as may be necessary 
     to provide for the continued maintenance and efficient 
     operation of such housing.
       ``(2) Disposal of certain housing.--This subsection may not 
     be construed to prevent the Director, or any entity funded by 
     the Department, from demolishing or disposing of housing, 
     pursuant to regulations established by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Insurance Coverage.--As a condition to receiving 
     grant amounts under this title, the Director shall require 
     adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned 
     or operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under 
     this title.
       ``(d) Eligibility for Admission.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     develop written policies governing the eligibility, 
     admission, and occupancy of families for housing assisted 
     with grant amounts provided under this title.
       ``(e) Management and Maintenance.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     develop policies governing the management and maintenance of 
     housing assisted with grant amounts under this title.

     ``SEC. 812. TYPES OF INVESTMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to section 811 and an applicable 
     housing plan approved under section 803, the Director shall 
     have--
       ``(1) the discretion to use grant amounts for affordable 
     housing activities through the use of--
       ``(A) equity investments;
       ``(B) interest-bearing loans or advances;
       ``(C) noninterest-bearing loans or advances;
       ``(D) interest subsidies;
       ``(E) the leveraging of private investments; or
       ``(F) any other form of assistance that the Secretary 
     determines to be consistent with the purposes of this title; 
     and
       ``(2) the right to establish the terms of assistance 
     provided with funds referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Investments.--The Director may invest grant amounts 
     for the purposes of carrying out affordable housing 
     activities in investment securities and other obligations, as 
     approved by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 813. LOW-INCOME REQUIREMENT AND INCOME TARGETING.

       ``(a) In General.--Housing shall qualify for affordable 
     housing for purposes of this title only if--
       ``(1) each dwelling unit in the housing--
       ``(A) in the case of rental housing, is made available for 
     occupancy only by a family that is a low-income family at the 
     time of the initial occupancy of that family of that unit; 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of housing for homeownership, is made 
     available for purchase only by a family that is a low-income 
     family at the time of purchase; and
       ``(2) each dwelling unit in the housing will remain 
     affordable, according to binding commitments satisfactory to 
     the Secretary, for--
       ``(A) the remaining useful life of the property (as 
     determined by the Secretary) without regard to the term of 
     the mortgage or to transfer of ownership; or
       ``(B) such other period as the Secretary determines is the 
     longest feasible period of time consistent with sound 
     economics and the purposes of this title, except upon a 
     foreclosure by a lender (or upon other transfer in lieu of 
     foreclosure) if that action--
       ``(i) recognizes any contractual or legal rights of any 
     public agency, nonprofit sponsor, or other person or entity 
     to take an action that would--

       ``(I) avoid termination of low-income affordability, in the 
     case of foreclosure; or
       ``(II) transfer ownership in lieu of foreclosure; and

       ``(ii) is not for the purpose of avoiding low-income 
     affordability restrictions, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), housing 
     assisted pursuant to section 809(a)(2)(B) shall be considered 
     affordable housing for purposes of this title.

      ``SEC. 814. LEASE REQUIREMENTS AND TENANT SELECTION.

       ``(a) Leases.--Except to the extent otherwise provided by 
     or inconsistent with the laws of the State of Hawaii, in 
     renting dwelling units in affordable housing assisted with 
     grant amounts provided under this title, the Director, owner, 
     or manager shall use leases that--
       ``(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
       ``(2) require the Director, owner, or manager to maintain 
     the housing in compliance with applicable housing codes and 
     quality standards;
       ``(3) require the Director, owner, or manager to give 
     adequate written notice of termination of the lease, which 
     shall be the period of time required under applicable State 
     or local law;
       ``(4) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction 
     or termination, notwithstanding any State or local law, a 
     resident shall be informed of the opportunity, before any 
     hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, record, 
     or regulations directly related to the eviction or 
     termination;
       ``(5) require that the Director, owner, or manager may not 
     terminate the tenancy, during the term of the lease, except 
     for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions 
     of the lease, violation of applicable Federal, State, or 
     local law, or for other good cause; and
       ``(6) provide that the Director, owner, and manager may 
     terminate the tenancy of a resident for any activity, engaged 
     in by the resident, any member of the household of the 
     resident, or any guest or other person under the control of 
     the resident, that--
       ``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other residents or 
     employees of the Department, owner, or manager;
       ``(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in 
     the immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       ``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity) on or off the premises.
       ``(b) Tenant or Homebuyer Selection.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     adopt and use written tenant and homebuyer selection policies 
     and criteria that--
       ``(1) are consistent with the purpose of providing housing 
     for low-income families;
       ``(2) are reasonably related to program eligibility and the 
     ability of the applicant to perform the obligations of the 
     lease; and
       ``(3) provide for--
       ``(A) the selection of tenants and homebuyers from a 
     written waiting list in accordance with the policies and 
     goals set forth in an applicable housing plan approved under 
     section 803; and
       ``(B) the prompt notification in writing of any rejected 
     applicant of the grounds for that rejection.

     ``SEC. 815. REPAYMENT.

       ``If the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands uses grant 
     amounts to provide affordable housing under activities under 
     this title and, at any time during the useful life of the 
     housing, the housing does not comply with the requirement 
     under section 813(a)(2), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reduce future grant payments on behalf of the 
     Department by an amount equal to the grant amounts used for 
     that housing (under the authority of section 819(a)(2)); or
       ``(2) require repayment to the Secretary of any amount 
     equal to those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 816. ANNUAL ALLOCATION.

       ``For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate any 
     amounts made available for assistance under this title for 
     the fiscal year, in accordance with the formula established 
     pursuant to section 817 to the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands if the Department complies with the requirements under 
     this title for a grant under this title.

     ``SEC. 817. ALLOCATION FORMULA.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall, by regulation 
     issued not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999, 
     in the manner provided under section 807, establish a formula 
     to provide for the allocation of amounts available for a 
     fiscal year for block grants under this title in accordance 
     with the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Factors for Determination of Need.--The formula under 
     subsection (a) shall be based on factors that reflect the 
     needs for assistance for affordable housing activities, 
     including--
       ``(1) the number of low-income dwelling units owned or 
     operated at the time pursuant to a contract between the 
     Director and the Secretary;
       ``(2) the extent of poverty and economic distress and the 
     number of Native Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the 
     Hawaiian Home Lands; and
       ``(3) any other objectively measurable conditions that the 
     Secretary and the Director may specify.
       ``(c) Other Factors for Consideration.--In establishing the 
     formula under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the relative

[[Page 1005]]

     administrative capacities of the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands and other challenges faced by the Department, 
     including--
       ``(1) geographic distribution within Hawaiian Home Lands; 
     and
       ``(2) technical capacity.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999.

     ``SEC. 818. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) Actions by Secretary Affecting Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if 
     the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has 
     failed to comply substantially with any provision of this 
     title, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) terminate payments under this title to the 
     Department;
       ``(B) reduce payments under this title to the Department by 
     an amount equal to the amount of such payments that were not 
     expended in accordance with this title; or
       ``(C) limit the availability of payments under this title 
     to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such 
     failure to comply.
       ``(2) Actions.--If the Secretary takes an action under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall continue that action until the Secretary determines 
     that the failure by the Department to comply with the 
     provision has been remedied by the Department and the 
     Department is in compliance with that provision.
       ``(b) Noncompliance Because of a Technical Incapacity.--The 
     Secretary may provide technical assistance for the 
     Department, either directly or indirectly, that is designed 
     to increase the capability and capacity of the Director of 
     the Department to administer assistance provided under this 
     title in compliance with the requirements under this title if 
     the Secretary makes a finding under subsection (a), but 
     determines that the failure of the Department to comply 
     substantially with the provisions of this title--
       ``(1) is not a pattern or practice of activities 
     constituting willful noncompliance; and
       ``(2) is a result of the limited capability or capacity of 
     the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(c) Referral for Civil Action.--
       ``(1) Authority.--In lieu of, or in addition to, any action 
     that the Secretary may take under subsection (a), if the 
     Secretary has reason to believe that the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands has failed to comply substantially with 
     any provision of this title, the Secretary may refer the 
     matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a 
     recommendation that an appropriate civil action be 
     instituted.
       ``(2) Civil action.--Upon receiving a referral under 
     paragraph (1), the Attorney General may bring a civil action 
     in any United States district court of appropriate 
     jurisdiction for such relief as may be appropriate, including 
     an action--
       ``(A) to recover the amount of the assistance furnished 
     under this title that was not expended in accordance with 
     this title; or
       ``(B) for mandatory or injunctive relief.
       ``(d) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Director receives notice under 
     subsection (a) of the termination, reduction, or limitation 
     of payments under this Act, the Director--
       ``(A) may, not later than 60 days after receiving such 
     notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Ninth Circuit, or in the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the action 
     of the Secretary; and
       ``(B) upon the filing of any petition under subparagraph 
     (A), shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who 
     shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall file in the court a 
     record of the proceeding on which the Secretary based the 
     action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       ``(B) Objections.--No objection to the action of the 
     Secretary shall be considered by the court unless the 
     Department has registered the objection before the Secretary.
       ``(3) Disposition.--
       ``(A) Court proceedings.--
       ``(i) Jurisdiction of court.--The court shall have 
     jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary 
     or to set the action aside in whole or in part.
       ``(ii) Findings of fact.--If supported by substantial 
     evidence on the record considered as a whole, the findings of 
     fact by the Secretary shall be conclusive.
       ``(iii) Addition.--The court may order evidence, in 
     addition to the evidence submitted for review under this 
     subsection, to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part 
     of the record.
       ``(B) Secretary.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, by reason of the 
     additional evidence referred to in subparagraph (A) and filed 
     with the court--

       ``(I) may--

       ``(aa) modify the findings of fact of the Secretary; or
       ``(bb) make new findings; and

       ``(II) shall file--

       ``(aa) such modified or new findings; and
       ``(bb) the recommendation of the Secretary, if any, for the 
     modification or setting aside of the original action of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(ii) Findings.--The findings referred to in clause 
     (i)(II)(bb) shall, with respect to a question of fact, be 
     considered to be conclusive if those findings are--

       ``(I) supported by substantial evidence on the record; and
       ``(II) considered as a whole.

       ``(4) Finality.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     upon the filing of the record under this subsection with the 
     court--
       ``(i) the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive; and
       ``(ii) the judgment of the court shall be final.
       ``(B) Review by supreme court.--A judgment under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to review by the Supreme 
     Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or 
     certification, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, 
     United States Code.

     ``SEC. 819. MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) Enforceable Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, through binding 
     contractual agreements with owners or other authorized 
     entities, shall ensure long-term compliance with the 
     provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Measures.--The measures referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall provide for--
       ``(A) to the extent allowable by Federal and State law, the 
     enforcement of the provisions of this title by the Department 
     and the Secretary; and
       ``(B) remedies for breach of the provisions referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Periodic Monitoring.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Director shall review the activities conducted and housing 
     assisted under this title to assess compliance with the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(2) Review.--Each review under paragraph (1) shall 
     include onsite inspection of housing to determine compliance 
     with applicable requirements.
       ``(3) Results.--The results of each review under paragraph 
     (1) shall be--
       ``(A) included in a performance report of the Director 
     submitted to the Secretary under section 820; and
       ``(B) made available to the public.
       ``(c) Performance Measures.--The Secretary shall establish 
     such performance measures as may be necessary to assess 
     compliance with the requirements of this title.

     ``SEC. 820. PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--For each fiscal year, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) review the progress the Department has made during 
     that fiscal year in carrying out the housing plan submitted 
     by the Department under section 803; and
       ``(2) submit a report to the Secretary (in a form 
     acceptable to the Secretary) describing the conclusions of 
     the review.
       ``(b) Content.--Each report submitted under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall--
       ``(1) describe the use of grant amounts provided to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for that fiscal year;
       ``(2) assess the relationship of the use referred to in 
     paragraph (1) to the goals identified in the housing plan;
       ``(3) indicate the programmatic accomplishments of the 
     Department; and
       ``(4) describe the manner in which the Department would 
     change its housing plan submitted under section 803 as a 
     result of its experiences.
       ``(c) Submissions.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish a date for submission of each report under 
     this section;
       ``(2) review each such report; and
       ``(3) with respect to each such report, make 
     recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate to 
     carry out the purposes of this title.
       ``(d) Public Availability.--
       ``(1) Comments by beneficiaries.--In preparing a report 
     under this section, the Director shall make the report 
     publicly available to the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.) and give a 
     sufficient amount of time to permit those beneficiaries to 
     comment on that report before it is submitted to the 
     Secretary (in such manner and at such time as the Director 
     may determine).
       ``(2) Summary of comments.--The report shall include a 
     summary of any comments received by the Director from 
     beneficiaries under paragraph (1) regarding the program to 
     carry out the housing plan.

     ``SEC. 821. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Annual Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, not less frequently 
     than on an annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may 
     be necessary or appropriate to determine whether--
       ``(A) the Director has--
       ``(i) carried out eligible activities under this title in a 
     timely manner;
       ``(ii) carried out and made certifications in accordance 
     with the requirements and the primary objectives of this 
     title and with other applicable laws; and
       ``(iii) a continuing capacity to carry out the eligible 
     activities in a timely manner;

[[Page 1006]]

       ``(B) the Director has complied with the housing plan 
     submitted by the Director under section 803; and
       ``(C) the performance reports of the Department under 
     section 821 are accurate.
       ``(2) Onsite visits.--Each review conducted under this 
     section shall, to the extent practicable, include onsite 
     visits by employees of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       ``(b) Report by Secretary.--The Secretary shall give the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands not less than 30 days to 
     review and comment on a report under this subsection. After 
     taking into consideration the comments of the Department, the 
     Secretary may revise the report and shall make the comments 
     of the Department and the report with any revisions, readily 
     available to the public not later than 30 days after receipt 
     of the comments of the Department.
       ``(c) Effect of Reviews.--The Secretary may make 
     appropriate adjustments in the amount of annual grants under 
     this title in accordance with the findings of the Secretary 
     pursuant to reviews and audits under this section. The 
     Secretary may adjust, reduce, or withdraw grant amounts, or 
     take other action as appropriate in accordance with the 
     reviews and audits of the Secretary under this section, 
     except that grant amounts already expended on affordable 
     housing activities may not be recaptured or deducted from 
     future assistance provided to the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands.

     ``SEC. 822. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDITS.

       ``To the extent that the financial transactions of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands involving grant amounts 
     under this title relate to amounts provided under this title, 
     those transactions may be audited by the Comptroller General 
     of the United States under such regulations as may be 
     prescribed by the Comptroller General. The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall have access to all books, 
     accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, things, 
     or property belonging to or in use by the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands pertaining to such financial transactions 
     and necessary to facilitate the audit.

     ``SEC. 823. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     conclusion of each fiscal year in which assistance under this 
     title is made available, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a report that contains--
       ``(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing 
     the objectives of this title;
       ``(2) a summary of the use of funds available under this 
     title during the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(3) a description of the aggregate outstanding loan 
     guarantees under section 184A of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992.
       ``(b) Related Reports.--The Secretary may require the 
     Director to submit to the Secretary such reports and other 
     information as may be necessary in order for the Secretary to 
     prepare the report required under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 824. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development for grants under this title 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2000, 
     2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.

     SEC. 4. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

       Subtitle E of title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after section 
     184 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a) the following:

     ``SEC. 184A. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands.--The term 
     `Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' means the agency or 
     department of the government of the State of Hawaii that is 
     responsible for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 set seq.).
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     Native Hawaiian family, the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, private nonprofit or 
     for profit organizations experienced in the planning and 
     development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians.
       ``(3) Family.--The term `family' means 1 or more persons 
     maintaining a household, as the Secretary shall by regulation 
     provide.
       ``(4) Guarantee fund.--The term `Guarantee Fund' means the 
     Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under 
     subsection (i).
       ``(5) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands' 
     means lands that--
       ``(A) have the status of Hawaiian Home Lands under section 
     204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
       ``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
       ``(6) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the 
     meaning given the term `native Hawaiian' in section 201 of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et 
     seq.).
       ``(7) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of 
     Hawaiian Affairs' means the entity of that name established 
     under the constitution of the State of Hawaii.
       ``(b) Authority.--To provide access to sources of private 
     financing to Native Hawaiian families who otherwise could not 
     acquire housing financing because of the unique legal status 
     of the Hawaiian home lands or as a result of a lack of access 
     to private financial markets, the Secretary may guarantee an 
     amount not to exceed 100 percent of the unpaid principal and 
     interest that is due on an eligible loan under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(c) Eligible Loans.--Under this section, a loan is an 
     eligible loan if that loan meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) Eligible borrowers.--The loans is made only to a 
     borrower who--
       ``(A) is a Native Hawaiian family;
       ``(B) the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands;
       ``(C) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; or
       ``(D) a private nonprofit organization experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians.
       ``(2) Eligible housing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The loan will be used to construct, 
     acquire, or rehabilitate not more than 4-family dwellings 
     that are standard housing and are located on Hawaiian Home 
     Lands for which a housing plan described in subparagraph (B) 
     applies.
       ``(B) Housing plan.--A housing plan described in this 
     subparagraph is a housing plan that--
       ``(i) has been submitted and approved by the Secretary 
     under section 803 of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999; and
       ``(ii) provides for the use of loan guarantees under this 
     section to provide affordable homeownership housing on 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(3) Security.--The loan may be secured by any collateral 
     authorized under applicable Federal law or State law.
       ``(4) Lenders.--
       ``(A) In general.--The loan shall be made only by a lender 
     approved by, and meeting qualifications established by, the 
     Secretary, including any lender described in subparagraph 
     (B), except that a loan otherwise insured or guaranteed by an 
     agency of the Federal Government or made by the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands from amounts borrowed from the United 
     Sates shall not be eligible for a guarantee under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Approval.--The following lenders shall be considered 
     to be lenders that have been approved by the Secretary:
       ``(i) Any mortgagee approved by the Secretary for 
     participation in the single family mortgage insurance program 
     under title II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1707 
     et seq.).
       ``(ii) Any lender that makes housing loans under chapter 37 
     of title 38, United States Code, that are automatically 
     guaranteed under section 3702(d) of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       ``(iii) Any lender approved by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to make guaranteed loans for single family housing under the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.A. 1441 et seq.).
       ``(iv) Any other lender that is supervised, approved, 
     regulated, or insured by any agency of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(5) Terms.--The loan shall--
       ``(A) be made for a term not exceeding 30 years;
       ``(B) bear interest (exclusive of the guarantee fee under 
     subsection (d) and service charges, if any) at a rate agreed 
     upon by the borrower and the lender and determined by the 
     Secretary to be reasonable, but not to exceed the rate 
     generally charged in the area (as determined by the 
     Secretary) for home mortgage loans not guaranteed or insured 
     by any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government;
       ``(C) involve a principal obligation not exceeding--
       ``(i) 97.75 percent of the appraised value of the property 
     as of the date the loan is accepted for guarantee (or 98.75 
     percent if the value of the property is $50,000 or less); or
       ``(ii) the amount approved by the Secretary under this 
     section; and
       ``(D) involve a payment on account of the property--
       ``(i) in cash or its equivalent; or
       ``(ii) through the value of any improvements to the 
     property made through the skilled or unskilled labor of the 
     borrower, as the Secretary shall provide.
       ``(d) Certificate of Guarantee.--
       ``(1) Approval process.--
       ``(A) In general.--Before the Secretary approves any loan 
     for guarantee under this section, the lender shall submit the 
     application for the loan to the Secretary for examination.
       ``(B) Approval.--If the Secretary approves the application 
     submitted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue a 
     certificate under this subsection as evidence of the loan 
     guarantee approved.
       ``(2) Standard for approval.--The Secretary may approve a 
     loan for guarantee under this section and issue a certificate 
     under this subsection only if the Secretary determines that 
     there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the loan.
       ``(3) Effect.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certificate of guarantee issued under 
     this subsection by the Secretary shall be conclusive evidence 
     of the eligibility of the loan for guarantee under this 
     section and the amount of that guarantee.
       ``(B) Evidence.--The evidence referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be incontestable in the hands of the bearer.

[[Page 1007]]

       ``(C) Full faith and credit.--The full faith and credit of 
     the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts 
     agreed to be paid by the Secretary as security for the 
     obligations made by the Secretary under this section.
       ``(4) Fraud and misrepresentation.--This subsection may not 
     be construed--
       ``(A) to preclude the Secretary from establishing defenses 
     against the original lender based on fraud or material 
     misrepresentation; or
       ``(B) to bar the Secretary from establishing by regulations 
     that are on the date of issuance or disbursement, whichever 
     is earlier, partial defenses to the amount payable on the 
     guarantee.
       ``(e) Guarantee Fee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall fix and collect a 
     guarantee fee for the guarantee of a loan under this section, 
     which may not exceed the amount equal to 1 percent of the 
     principal obligation of the loan.
       ``(2) Payment.--The fee under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) be paid by the lender at time of issuance of the 
     guarantee; and
       ``(B) be adequate, in the determination of the Secretary, 
     to cover expenses and probable losses.
       ``(3) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit any fees 
     collected under this subsection in the Native Hawaiian 
     Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under subsection (j).
       ``(f) Liability Under Guarantee.--The liability under a 
     guarantee provided under this section shall decrease or 
     increase on a pro rata basis according to any decrease or 
     increase in the amount of the unpaid obligation under the 
     provisions of the loan agreement involved.
       ``(g) Transfer and Assumption.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any loan guaranteed under this section, 
     including the security given for the loan, may be sold or 
     assigned by the lender to any financial institution subject 
     to examination and supervision by an agency of the Federal 
     Government or of any State or the District of Columbia.
       ``(h) Disqualification of Lenders and Civil Money 
     Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Grounds for action.--The Secretary may take action 
     under subparagraph (B) if the Secretary determines that any 
     lender or holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection 
     (c)--
       ``(i) has failed--

       ``(I) to maintain adequate accounting records;
       ``(II) to service adequately loans guaranteed under this 
     section; or
       ``(III) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment; 
     or

       ``(ii) has engaged in practices otherwise detrimental to 
     the interest of a borrower or the United States.
       ``(B) Actions.--Upon a determination by the Secretary that 
     a holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection (c) has 
     failed to carry out an activity described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i) or has engaged in practices described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the Secretary may--
       ``(i) refuse, either temporarily or permanently, to 
     guarantee any further loans made by such lender or holder;
       ``(ii) bar such lender or holder from acquiring additional 
     loans guaranteed under this section; and
       ``(iii) require that such lender or holder assume not less 
     than 10 percent of any loss on further loans made or held by 
     the lender or holder that are guaranteed under this section.
       ``(2) Civil money penalties for intentional violations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may impose a civil 
     monetary penalty on a lender or holder of a guarantee 
     certificate under subsection (d) if the Secretary determines 
     that the holder or lender has intentionally failed--
       ``(i) to maintain adequate accounting records;
       ``(ii) to adequately service loans guaranteed under this 
     section; or
       ``(iii) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment.
       ``(B) Penalties.--A civil monetary penalty imposed under 
     this paragraph shall be imposed in the manner and be in an 
     amount provided under section 536 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-1) with respect to mortgagees and lenders 
     under that Act.
       ``(3) Payment on loans made in good faith.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), if a loan was made in good faith, the 
     Secretary may not refuse to pay a lender or holder of a valid 
     guarantee on that loan, without regard to whether the lender 
     or holder is barred under this subsection.
       ``(i) Payment Under Guarantee.--
       ``(1) Lender options.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Notification.--If borrower on a loan guaranteed under 
     this section defaults on the loan, the holder of the 
     guarantee certificate shall provide written notice of the 
     default to the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Payment.--Upon providing the notice required under 
     clause (i), the holder of the guarantee certificate shall be 
     entitled to payment under the guarantee (subject to the 
     provisions of this section) and may proceed to obtain payment 
     in 1 of the following manners:

       ``(I) Foreclosure.--

       ``(aa) In general.--The holder of the certificate may 
     initiate foreclosure proceedings (after providing written 
     notice of that action to the Secretary).
       ``(bb) Payment.--Upon a final order by the court 
     authorizing foreclosure and submission to the Secretary of a 
     claim for payment under the guarantee, the Secretary shall 
     pay to the holder of the certificate the pro rata portion of 
     the amount guaranteed (as determined pursuant to subsection 
     (f)) plus reasonable fees and expenses as approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be 
     subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The 
     holder shall assign the obligation and security to the 
     Secretary.

       ``(II) No foreclosure.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Without seeking foreclosure (or in any 
     case in which a foreclosure proceeding initiated under clause 
     (i) continues for a period in excess of 1 year), the holder 
     of the guarantee may submit to the Secretary a request to 
     assign the obligation and security interest to the Secretary 
     in return for payment of the claim under the guarantee. The 
     Secretary may accept assignment of the loan if the Secretary 
     determines that the assignment is in the best interest of the 
     United States.
       ``(bb) Payment.--Upon assignment, the Secretary shall pay 
     to the holder of the guarantee the pro rata portion of the 
     amount guaranteed (as determined under subsection (f)).
       ``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be 
     subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The 
     holder shall assign the obligation and security to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Before any payment under a guarantee 
     is made under subparagraph (A), the holder of the guarantee 
     shall exhaust all reasonable possibilities of collection. 
     Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the holder, the note or 
     judgment evidencing the debt shall be assigned to the United 
     States and the holder shall have no further claim against the 
     borrower or the United States. The Secretary shall then take 
     such action to collect as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Limitations on liquidation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a borrower defaults on a loan 
     guaranteed under this section that involves a security 
     interest in restricted Hawaiian Home Land property, the 
     mortgagee or the Secretary shall only pursue liquidation 
     after offering to transfer the account to another eligible 
     Hawaiian family or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(B) Limitation.--If, after action is taken under 
     subparagraph (A), the mortgagee or the Secretary subsequently 
     proceeds to liquidate the account, the mortgagee or the 
     Secretary shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of 
     or alienate the property described in subparagraph (A) except 
     to another eligible Hawaiian family or to the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(j) Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States the Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 
     for the purpose of providing loan guarantees under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Credits.--The Guarantee Fund shall be credited with--
       ``(A) any amount, claims, notes, mortgages, contracts, and 
     property acquired by the Secretary under this section, and 
     any collections and proceeds therefrom;
       ``(B) any amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (7);
       ``(C) any guarantee fees collected under subsection (d); 
     and
       ``(D) any interest or earnings on amounts invested under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Use.--Amounts in the Guarantee Fund shall be 
     available, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, 
     for--
       ``(A) fulfilling any obligations of the Secretary with 
     respect to loans guaranteed under this section, including the 
     costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loans;
       ``(B) paying taxes, insurance, prior liens, expenses 
     necessary to make fiscal adjustment in connection with the 
     application and transmittal of collections, and other 
     expenses and advances to protect the Secretary for loans 
     which are guaranteed under this section or held by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(C) acquiring such security property at foreclosure sales 
     or otherwise;
       ``(D) paying administrative expenses in connection with 
     this section; and
       ``(E) reasonable and necessary costs of rehabilitation and 
     repair to properties that the Secretary holds or owns 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(4) Investment.--Any amounts in the Guarantee Fund 
     determined by the Secretary to be in excess of amounts 
     currently required at the time of the determination to carry 
     out this section may be invested in obligations of the United 
     States.
       ``(5) Limitation on commitments to guarantee loans and 
     mortgages.--
       ``(A) Requirement of appropriations.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to enter into

[[Page 1008]]

     commitments to guarantee loans under this section shall be 
     effective for any fiscal year to the extent, or in such 
     amounts as, are or have been provided in appropriations Acts, 
     without regard to the fiscal year for which such amounts were 
     appropriated.
       ``(B) Limitations on costs of guarantees.--The authority of 
     the Secretary to enter into commitments to guarantee loans 
     under this section shall be effective for any fiscal year 
     only to the extent that amounts in the Guarantee Fund are or 
     have been made available in appropriations Acts to cover the 
     costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loan 
     guarantees for such fiscal year. Any amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to this subparagraph shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(C) Limitation on outstanding aggregate principal 
     amount.--Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), the Secretary may enter into commitments to guarantee 
     loans under this section for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 
     2002, 2003, and 2004 with an aggregate outstanding principal 
     amount not exceeding $100,000,000 for each such fiscal year.
       ``(6) Liabilities.--All liabilities and obligations of the 
     assets credited to the Guarantee Fund under paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall be liabilities and obligations of the Guarantee Fund.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Guarantee Fund to carry 
     out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
       ``(k) Requirements for Standard Housing.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     establish housing safety and quality standards to be applied 
     for use under this section.
       ``(2) Standards.--The standards referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       ``(A) provide sufficient flexibility to permit the use of 
     various designs and materials in housing acquired with loans 
     guaranteed under this section; and
       ``(B) require each dwelling unit in any housing acquired in 
     the manner described in subparagraph (A) to--
       ``(i) be decent, safe, sanitary, and modest in size and 
     design;
       ``(ii) conform with applicable general construction 
     standards for the region in which the housing is located;
       ``(iii) contain a plumbing system that--

       ``(I) uses a properly installed system of piping;
       ``(II) includes a kitchen sink and a partitional bathroom 
     with lavatory, toilet, and bath or shower; and
       ``(III) uses water supply, plumbing, and sewage disposal 
     systems that conform to any minimum standards established by 
     the applicable county or State;

       ``(iv) contain an electrical system using wiring and 
     equipment properly installed to safely supply electrical 
     energy for adequate lighting and for operation of appliances 
     that conforms to any appropriate county, State, or national 
     code;
       ``(v) be not less than the size provided under the 
     applicable locally adopted standards for size of dwelling 
     units, except that the Secretary, upon request of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may waive the size 
     requirements under this paragraph; and
       ``(vi) conform with the energy performance requirements for 
     new construction established by the Secretary under section 
     526(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-4), 
     unless the Secretary determines that the requirements are not 
     applicable.
       ``(l) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--To the 
     extent that the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) or of title VIII of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to a 
     guarantee provided under this subsection, nothing in the 
     requirements concerning discrimination on the basis of race 
     shall be construed to prevent the provision of the guarantee 
     to an eligible entity on the basis that the entity serves 
     Native Hawaiian families or is a Native Hawaiian family.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 226. A bill to promote democracy and good governance in Nigeria, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


    the nigeria democracy and civil society empowerment act of 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation 
regarding Nigeria, a country that stands today astride the border 
between a repressive history and a potentially productive future.
  As the Ranking Democrat of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, I have 
long been concerned about the collapsing economic and political 
situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, with its rich history, abundant natural 
resources and wonderful cultural diversity, has the potential to be an 
important regional leader in West Africa, and the entire African 
continent. But, sadly, too many of Nigeria's leaders have squandered 
that potential and the good will of the world with repressive policies, 
human rights abuses and corruption.
  The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1999 that 
I offer today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that 
troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society 
Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the 
political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of 
law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively 
support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian 
government for the people of Nigeria.
  This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced during the last 
two Congresses with the leadership of several other distinguished 
members of Congress. In the 104th Congress, I joined the former chair 
of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum, and 20 other 
Senators in introducing sanctions legislation. In the 105th Congress, I 
introduced an updated version of that bill, a companion measure of 
which was introduced in the House by the distinguished chair of the 
House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a 
distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend the help and assistance of 
all of my colleagues on this important issue and I appreciate the 
opportunity to work with them toward the broader goal of a freer 
Nigeria.
  Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment 
Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States 
has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a 
ban on most foreign direct assistance and a ban on the sale of military 
goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and suggests the reimposition 
of restriction on visas for top Nigerian officials. But none of these 
sanctions will be imposed if the President can certify to the Congress 
that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding 
the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These 
benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of 
political prisoners, freedom of the press, continued access for 
international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many 
repressive decrees pressed upon the Nigerian people by successive 
military regimes.
  This legislation also provides for $37 million in development 
assistance over three years to support democracy and governance 
programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and 
mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new 
money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA 
appropriations.
  Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report 
on corruption in Nigeria including the evidence of corruption by 
government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the 
delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.S. business interests 
in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that 
the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. 
citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes 
originating in Nigeria.
  The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will continue 
to send an unequivocal message to whomever is ruling Nigeria that 
disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil 
society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill provides 
some direction to the Clinton Administration which had considerable 
difficulty articulating a coherent policy on Nigeria throughout the 
Abacha regime, and which, I fear, has too quickly embraced the Abubakar 
regime despite several important outstanding problems.
  Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 
years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic 
location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically 
important both in regional and

[[Page 1009]]

international terms. Nigeria is critical to American interests. But 
Nigeria's future was nearly destroyed by the military government of 
General Sani Abacha. Abacha presided over a Nigeria stunted by rampant 
corruption, economic mismanagement and the brutal subjugation of its 
people.
  Gen. Abacha was by any definition an authoritarian leader of the 
worst sort. He routinely imprisoned individuals for expressing their 
political opinions and skimmed Nigeria's precious resources for his own 
gains and that of his supporters and cronies. He pretended to set a 
timetable for a democratic transition, but each of the five officially 
sanctioned parties under his plan ended up endorsing Gen. Abacha as 
their candidate in what would have been nothing more than a circus 
referendum on Abacha himself.
  During the dark days of the Abacha regime, any criticism of the so-
called transition process was punishable by five years in a Nigerian 
prison. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics were 
commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and 
imprisoned; independent media outlets were silenced; workers' rights to 
organize were restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of 
Persons] Decree No. 2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest 
and detention, remained in force.
  Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha 
government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist 
Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. 
Between the time of that barbaric spectacle and his death, Abacha 
appeared to be working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, 
wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria.
  But with the replacement of Abacha by the current military ruler, 
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, there has been reason to be optimistic about 
Nigeria's future. Although he has not yet moved to repeal the 
repressive decrees that place severe restrictions on the basic freedoms 
of Nigerians, including aforementioned Decree No. 2, Gen. Abubakar has 
made significant progress in enacting political reforms, including the 
establishment of a realistic time line for the transition to civilian 
rule and guidelines for political participation. According to his 
transition plan, power will be handed over to a civilian government of 
May 29, 1999, after a series of elections scheduled for December 5, 
1998 (local government), January 9, 1999 (state assembly and 
governors), February 20 1999 (national assembly) and February 27, 1999 
(presidential). Abubakar also agreed to release political prisoners, 
and some have indeed been released including several prominent 
individuals.
  Most Nigerians appear to have embraced this transition program, and 
many in the international community have welcomed Gen. Abubakar's bold 
statements. Nevertheless, observers remain apprehensive about the role 
of the security forces and of the military, perceived weaknesses in the 
electoral system, the lack of a clear constitutional order, and the 
possibility of violence during the electoral period. Nigerians also 
remain concerned about the important questions of federalism and 
decentralization--including the control and distribution of national 
wealth--which have yet to be satisfactorily worked out. These concerns, 
which remain a backdrop to the current transition, tend to dampen what 
is otherwise a largely optimistic and enthusiastic attitude throughout 
the country.
  Thus, as pleased as I am to see the progress being made, I remain 
cautious about embracing the new dispensation until we can actually see 
it in place. Adding to my concerns is the disturbing behavior of the 
military over New Year's weekend in Bayelsa state. According to 
unconfirmed reports, as many as 100 people may have been killed in the 
area around Yenagoa, and the military reinforcements have brought in a 
force of 10,000 to 15,000 troops to the area. The military government 
also declared as state of emergency for several days. While the 
circumstances surrounding the crackdown are unclear, it is troubling 
that--even during this sensitive time of political transition--the 
Abubakar regime would rely so heavily on hold habits. Minor 
disturbance? Send in thousands of troops to take care of it! I fear 
these troops do not know how to ``maintain public order''; rather, they 
know only how to implement repression. How seriously can we take 
Abubakar's encouraging statements about political reform, when he 
continues to use the instruments of repression learned under the Abacha 
regime?
  Nigeria's political transition is taking place in the context of 
economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the 
economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political 
leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of 
these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria 
continues to stagnate, Even oil revenues are not what they might be, 
but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the 
United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output.
  Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic 
and political system have become common, including reports of drug 
trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria 
and reached into the United States, including my home state of 
Wisconsin.
  The last time Nigeria appeared posied finally to make a democratic 
transition, during the 1993 presidential election, the military quickly 
annulled the results, and promptly put into prision the presumed winner 
of that eclection Chief Moshood Abiola.
  Despite numerous domestic and international pleas for his release, he 
remained in prison until his tragic death in July. Years of neglect and 
months of solitary confinement took its toll on Chief Abiola, and 
barely one month after the death of General Abacha, Abiola died of an 
apparent heart attack during a meeting with senior American officials.
  It is unfortunate, but Nigeria suffers greatly from the weight of its 
tortured history. I truly hope the transition currently underway will 
have better results than previous ones, but we must not let hope and 
expectation cloud our standards for what is best for Nigeria. I am 
afraid that the international community, and particularly the Clinton 
administration, are so quick to reward counties for good behavior, that 
they then trend to ignore continuing bad behavior. I have noticed this 
problem in U.S. relations with Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, and it 
certainly is a concern with Nigeria now.
  It is in that light that I have decided to reintroduce my bill. This 
may sound odd, but I actually hope I don't need to pursue this 
legislation in its current form. I sincerely hope that the transition 
in Nigeria goes according to all our best wishes, and that there will 
be no need to impose these sanctions. But if it does not, the spoilers 
should be aware the U.S. Congress is watching, and will act. This bill 
provides the means for that action. We cannot let Nigeria spiral down 
into the quagmire that has overtaken so much of the continent.
  I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance 
possible in support of democracy in Nigeria. The regime in Nigeria must 
know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule 
will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as 
mandated in this bill.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents and 
effort to encourage the best that Nigeria has to offer, to support 
those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy 
and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria 
policy that vigorously reflects the best American values.
  The provisions of my bill include benchmarks defining what would 
constitute an open political process in Nigeria. Despite all the 
tumultuous events that have taken place in these few months. I still 
believe these benchmarks are important, and I continue to call on Gen. 
Abubaker to implement as soon as possible these important changes, such 
as the repeal of the repressive decrees enacted under Abacha's rule, so 
that genuine reform may flourish in Nigeria.

[[Page 1010]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 226

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nigerian Democracy and Civil 
     Society Empowerment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The rule by successive military regimes in Nigeria has 
     harmed the lives of the people of Nigeria, undermined 
     confidence in the Nigerian economy, damaged relations between 
     Nigeria and the United States, and threatened the political 
     and economic stability of West Africa.
       (2) The current military regime, under the leadership of 
     Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar, has made significant progress in 
     liberalizing the political environment in Nigeria, including 
     the release of many political prisoners, increased respect 
     for freedom of assembly, expression and association, and the 
     establishment of a timeframe for a transition to civilian 
     rule.
       (3) Previous military regimes allowed Nigeria to become a 
     haven for international drug trafficking rings and other 
     criminal organizations, although the current government has 
     taken some steps to cooperate with the United States 
     Government in halting such trafficking.
       (4) Since 1993, the United States and other members of the 
     international community have imposed limited sanctions 
     against Nigeria in response to human rights violations and 
     political repression, although some of these sanctions have 
     been lifted in response to recent political liberalization.
       (5) Despite the progress made in protecting certain 
     freedoms, numerous decrees are still in force that suspend 
     the constitutional protection of fundamental human rights, 
     allow indefinite detention without charge, and revoke the 
     jurisdiction of civilian courts over executive actions.
       (6) As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and 
     Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and 
     Peoples' Rights, and a signatory to the Harare Commonwealth 
     Declaration, Nigeria is obligated to fairly conduct elections 
     that guarantee the free expression of the will of the 
     electors.
       (7) As the leading military force within the Economic 
     Community of West African States (ECOWAS) peacekeeping force, 
     Nigeria has played a major role in attempting to secure peace 
     in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
       (8) Despite the optimism expressed by many observers about 
     the progress that has been made in Nigeria, the country's 
     recent history raises serious questions about the potential 
     success of the transition process. In particular, events in 
     the Niger Delta over the New Year underscore the critical 
     need for ongoing monitoring of the situation and indicate 
     that a return by the military to repressive methods is still 
     a possibility.
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that the 
     United States should encourage political, economic, and legal 
     reforms necessary to ensure rule of law and respect for human 
     rights in Nigeria and support a timely, effective, and 
     sustainable transition to democratic, civilian government in 
     Nigeria.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) International Cooperation.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the President should actively seek to coordinate with 
     other countries to further--
       (1) the United States policy of promoting the rule of law 
     and respect for human rights; and
       (2) the transition to democratic civilian government.
       (b) United Nations Human Rights Commission.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that, in light of the importance of Nigeria 
     to the region and the severity of successive military 
     regimes, the President should instruct the United States 
     Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human 
     Rights (UNCHR) to use the voice and vote of the United States 
     at the annual meeting of the Commission--
       (1) to condemn human rights abuses in Nigeria, as 
     appropriate, while recognizing the progress that has been 
     made; and
       (2) to press for the continued renewal of the mandate of, 
     and continued access to Nigeria for, the special rapporteur 
     on Nigeria.

     SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN 
                   NIGERIA.

       (a) Development Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal 
     years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out chapter 1 of part I 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et 
     seq.), not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, not 
     less than $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and not less than 
     $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 should be available for 
     assistance described in paragraph (2) for Nigeria.
       (2) Assistance described.--
       (A) In general.--The assistance described in this paragraph 
     is assistance provided to nongovernmental organizations for 
     the purpose of promoting democracy, good governance, and the 
     rule of law in Nigeria.
       (B) Additional requirement.--In providing assistance under 
     this subsection, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall ensure that 
     nongovernmental organizations receiving such assistance 
     represent a broad cross-section of society in Nigeria and 
     seek to promote democracy, human rights, and accountable 
     government.
       (3) Grants for promotion of human rights.--Of the amounts 
     made available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under 
     paragraph (1), not less than $500,000 for each such fiscal 
     year should be available to the United States Agency for 
     International Development for the purpose of providing grants 
     of not more than $25,000 each to support individuals or 
     nongovernmental organizations that seek to promote, directly 
     or indirectly, the advancement of human rights in Nigeria.
       (b) USIA Information Assistance.--Of the amounts made 
     available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under 
     subsection (a)(1), not less than $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $2,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 should be made available to the United 
     States Information Agency for the purpose of supporting its 
     activities in Nigeria, including the promotion of greater 
     awareness among Nigerians of constitutional democracy, the 
     rule of law, and respect for human rights.
       (c) Staff Levels and Assignments of United States Personnel 
     in Nigeria.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that staff levels at the 
     office of the United States Agency for International 
     Development in Lagos, Nigeria, are inadequate.
       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development should--
       (A) increase the number of United States personnel at such 
     Agency's office in Lagos, Nigeria, from within the current, 
     overall staff resources of such Agency in order for such 
     office to be sufficiently staffed to carry out subsection 
     (a); and
       (B) consider placement of personnel elsewhere in Nigeria.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT 
                   OF NIGERIA; PROHIBITION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
                   FOR NIGERIA; REQUIREMENT TO OPPOSE MULTILATERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR NIGERIA.

       (a) Prohibition on Economic Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Economic assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for economic assistance) shall not be 
     provided to the Government of Nigeria.
       (2) Economic assistance defined.--As used in this 
     subsection, the term ``economic assistance''--
       (A) means--
       (i) any assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) and any assistance under 
     chapter 4 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) 
     (relating to economic support fund); and
       (ii) any financing by the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States, financing and assistance by the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation, and assistance by the Trade and 
     Development Agency; and
       (B) does not include disaster relief assistance, refugee 
     assistance, or narcotics control assistance under chapter 8 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2291 et seq.).
       (b) Prohibition on Military Assistance or Arms Transfers.--
       (1) In general.--Military assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for military assistance) or arms 
     transfers shall not be provided to Nigeria.
       (2) Military assistance or arms transfers.--The term 
     ``military assistance or arms transfers'' means--
       (A) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) (relating to 
     military assistance), including the transfer of excess 
     defense articles under section 516 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j);
       (B) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) (relating to 
     international military education and training);
       (C) assistance under the ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'' under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2763); or
       (D) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or 
     design and construction services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), including defense 
     articles and defense services licensed or approved for export 
     under section 38 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
       (c) Requirement To Oppose Multilateral Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States executive director to each of the 
     international financial institutions described in paragraph 
     (2) to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose 
     any assistance to the Government of Nigeria.
       (2) International financial institutions described.--The 
     international financial institutions described in this 
     paragraph are

[[Page 1011]]

     the African Development Bank, the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development, the International Development 
     Association, the International Finance Corporation, the 
     Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency, and the 
     International Monetary Fund.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED 
                   STATES OF CERTAIN NIGERIAN NATIONALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that unless the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees by July 1, 1999, that a democratic transition to 
     civilian rule has taken place in Nigeria, the Secretary of 
     State should deny a visa to any alien who is a senior member 
     of the Nigerian government or a military officer currently in 
     the armed forces of Nigeria.

     SEC. 7. WAIVER OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST NIGERIA IF CERTAIN 
                   REQUIREMENTS MET.

       (a) In General.--The President may waive any of the 
     prohibitions contained in section 5 or 6 for any fiscal year 
     if the President makes a determination under subsection (b) 
     for that fiscal year and transmits a notification to Congress 
     of that determination under subsection (c).
       (b) Presidential Determination Required.--A determination 
     under this subsection is a determination that--
       (1) the Government of Nigeria--
       (A) is not harassing or imprisoning human rights and 
     democracy advocates and individuals for expressing their 
     political views;
       (B) has implemented the transition program announced in 
     July 1998;
       (C) is respecting freedom of speech, assembly, and the 
     media, including cessation of harassment of journalists;
       (D) has released the remaining individuals who have been 
     imprisoned without due process or for political reasons;
       (E) is continuing to provide access for independent 
     international human rights monitors;
       (F) has repealed all decrees and laws that--
       (i) grant undue powers to the military;
       (ii) suspend the constitutional protection of fundamental 
     human rights;
       (iii) allow indefinite detention without charge, including 
     the State of Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No. 2 of 
     1984; or
       (iv) create special tribunals that do not respect 
     international standards of due process; and
       (G) has ensured that the policing of the oil producing 
     communities is carried out without excessive use of force or 
     systematic and widespread human rights violations against the 
     civilian population of the area; or
       (2) it is in the national interests of the United States to 
     waive the prohibition in section 5 or 6, as the case may be.
       (c) Congressional Notification.--Notification under this 
     subsection is written notification of the determination of 
     the President under subsection (b) provided to the 
     appropriate congressional committees not less than 15 days in 
     advance of any waiver of any prohibition in section 5 or 6, 
     subject to the procedures applicable to reprogramming 
     notifications under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1).

     SEC. 8. REPORT ON CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA.

       Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and annually for the next 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, and make available to 
     the public, a report on corruption in Nigeria. This report 
     shall include--
       (1) evidence of corruption by government officials in 
     Nigeria;
       (2) the impact of corruption on the delivery of government 
     services in Nigeria;
       (3) the impact of corruption on United States business 
     interests in Nigeria;
       (4) the impact of advance fee fraud, and other fraudulent 
     business schemes originating in Nigeria, on United States 
     citizens; and
       (5) the impact of corruption on Nigeria's foreign policy.

     SEC. 9. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       Except as provided in section 6, in this Act, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on International Relations of the House 
     of Representatives;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 10. TERMINATION DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall terminate on September 30, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 227. A bill to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to 
provide or support programs to provide individuals with hypodermic 
needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


            LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with 
Senator Brownback and others, a bill to prohibit the use of federal 
funds to carry out or support programs for the distribution of sterile 
hypodermic needles or syringes to illegal drug users.
  This bill would effectively continue and make permanent the one year 
ban imposed through the appropriations process. Rather than revisit 
this issue each year, this bill would establish a firm federal policy 
against providing free needles to drug addicts. Health and Human 
Services Secretary Donna Shalala is on record strongly endorsing needle 
exchange programs and encouraging local communities to use their own 
dollars to fund needle exchange programs. This legislation is therefore 
needed to foreclose any temptation the Administration may feel to 
federally fund needle exchanges in the future.
  General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, has laid out the strong case against needle exchange 
programs. Handing out needles to drug users sends a message that the 
government is condoning drug use. It undermines our anti-drug message 
and undercuts all of our drug prevention efforts.
  A report by General McCaffrey's office reviewed the world's largest 
needle exchange program in Vancouver, British Columbia, in operation 
since 1988. It found the program to be a failure. HIV infections were 
higher among users of free needles than those without access to them. 
The death rate from drugs jumped from 18 a year in 1988 to 150 in 1992. 
In addition, higher drug use followed implementation of the program.
  Dr. James L. Curtis of New York, who has studied needle exchange 
programs, was quoted in the Washington Times stating that the programs 
``should be recognized as reckless experimentation on human beings, the 
unproven hypothesis being that it prevents AIDS.''
  According to recent scientific studies, eight persons a day are 
infected with the HIV virus by using borrowed needles, while 352 people 
start using heroin each day and 4,000 die every year from heroin-
related causes other than HIV. Far more addicts die of drug overdoses 
and related violence than from AIDS. It is wrong to aid and abet those 
deaths by handing out free needles to drug addicts. We should not be 
encouraging higher rates of heroin use.
  Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in making permanent the 
prohibition on federal funding and support of needle giveaway programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 230. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to 
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


            clinical social workers' recognition act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clinical 
Social Workers' Recognition Act of 1999 to correct an outstanding 
problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also 
provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as 
independent providers of quality mental health care services.
  Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and 
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance 
plans across the Nation. However, Title V, United States Code, does not 
permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical 
social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation 
claims brought by Federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects 
this problem.
  It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social 
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, 
but may not go to this professional for workers' compensation 
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations 
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal 
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation 
mental health evaluation and may well impose an undue burden on Federal 
employees where clinical social workers are the only available 
providers of mental health care.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 1012]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 230

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Social Workers' 
     Recognition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL 
                   WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

       Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 232. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services 
under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                 the clinical social worker act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies 
in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through 
Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this 
legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social 
workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession 
that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through 
the Medicare program.
  First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker 
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. 
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a 
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these 
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. 
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for 
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
  Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care 
provider team. They are legally regulated in every state of the Nation 
and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care 
throughout the health care system. I believe it is time to correct the 
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 232

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee 
     schedule established by the Secretary,''.
       (b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services 
     Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services 
     performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such 
     services and supplies furnished as an incident to such 
     services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))''.
       (c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in 
     Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social 
     worker services, and services''.
       (d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
     Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and 
     services'' and inserting ``clinical social worker services, 
     and services''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 233. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
ensure that social work students of social work schools are eligible 
for support under certain programs to assist individuals in pursuing 
health careers and programs of grants for training projects in 
geriatrics, and to establish a social work training program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


        amendment to title VII of the public health service act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social 
workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health 
Service Act. This legislation would (1) establish a new social work 
training program; (2) ensure that social work students are eligible for 
support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program; (3) provide 
social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority 
Centers of Excellence programs; (4) permit schools offering degrees in 
social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics; and 
(5) ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the 
Public Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act.
  Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to 
people of this Nation, particularly our elderly, disadvantaged and 
minority populations, few federal programs exist to provide 
opportunities for social work training in health and mental health 
care. This legislation builds on the health professional legislation 
enacted by the 102d Congress enabling schools of social work to apply 
for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) training funding and 
resources to establish collaborative relationships with rural health 
care providers and schools of osteopathic medicine. This bill would 
provide funding for traineeships and fellowships for individuals who 
plan to specialize in, practice, or teach social work, or for operating 
approved social work training programs; it would help disadvantaged 
students earn graduate degrees in social work with a concentration in 
health or mental health; it would provide new resources and 
opportunities in social work training for minorities; and it would 
encourage schools of social work to expand program in geriatrics. 
Finally, the recognition of social work as a profession merely codifies 
current social work practice and reflects modifications made by the 
Medicare HMO legislation.
  I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise and 
skill social workers possess continue to be available to the citizens 
of this nation. This legislation, by providing financial assistance to 
schools of social work and social work students, recognizes the long 
history and critical importance of the services provided by social work 
professionals. In addition, since social workers have provided quality 
mental health services to our citizens for a long time and continue to 
be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to service our 
disadvantaged populations, I believe it is time to provide them with 
the recognition they clearly earned and deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 233

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.

       (a) Health Professions School.--Section 736(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, 
     is amended by striking ``graduate program in behavioral or 
     mental health'' and inserting ``graduate program in 
     behavioral or mental health including a school offering 
     graduate programs in clinical social work, or programs in 
     social work''.
       (b) Scholarships, Generally.--Section 737(d)(1) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Lae 105-392, 
     is amended by striking ``mental health practice'' and 
     inserting ``mental health practice including graduate 
     programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs in 
     clinical social work, or programs in social work''.
       (c) Faculty Positions.--Section 738(a)(3) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is 
     amended by striking ``offering graduate programs in 
     behavioral and mental health'' and inserting ``offering 
     graduate programs in behavioral and mental health including 
     graduate programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs 
     in clinical social work, or programs in social work''.

[[Page 1013]]



     SEC. 2. GERIATRICS TRAINING PROJECTS.

       Section 753(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended by inserting 
     ``schools offering degrees in social work,'' after ``teaching 
     hospitals,''.

     SEC. 3. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 770 as section 770A;
       (2) by inserting after section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 770. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Training Generally.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to, or enter into contracts with, any public or nonprofit 
     private hospital, school offering programs in social work, or 
     to or with a public or private nonprofit entity (which the 
     Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such 
     grant or contract)--
       ``(1) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an 
     approved social work training program (including an approved 
     residency or internship program) for students, interns, 
     residents, or practicing physicians;
       ``(2) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to students, interns, 
     residents, practicing physicians, or other individuals, who 
     are in need thereof, who are participants in any such 
     program, and who plan to specialize or work in the practice 
     of social work;
       ``(3) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the 
     training of individuals who plan to teach in social work 
     training programs; and
       ``(4) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to individuals who are 
     participants in any such program and who plan to teach in a 
     social work training program.
       ``(b) Academic Administrative Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to or 
     enter into contracts with schools offering programs in social 
     work to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or 
     improve academic administrative units (which may be 
     departments, divisions, or other units) to provide clinical 
     instruction in social work.
       ``(2) Preference in making awards.--In making awards of 
     grants and contracts under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     give preference to any qualified applicant for such an award 
     that agrees to expend the award for the purpose of--
       ``(A) establishing an academic administrative unit for 
     programs in social work; or
       ``(B) substantially expanding the programs of such a unit.
       ``(c) Duration of Award.--The period during which payments 
     are made to an entity from an award of a grant or contract 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed 5 years. The provision of 
     such payments shall be subject to annual approval by the 
     Secretary of the payments and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for the fiscal year involved to make the 
     payments.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2002.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available not less than 20 percent for awards of grants and 
     contracts under subsection (b).''; and
       (3) in section 770A (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``other than section 770,'' after ``carrying out this 
     subpart,''.

     SEC. 4. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES.

       Section 1302 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300e-1) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``clinical 
     social worker,'' after ``psychologist,'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``and psychologists'' 
     and inserting ``psychologists, and clinical social workers''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``clinical social 
     work,'' after ``psychology,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 234. A bill to recognize the organization known as the National 
Academies of Practice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF PRACTICE RECOGNITION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. 
This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have 
made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, 
medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, podiatry, social work, and 
veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the nine academies 
will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. 
This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the 
United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy 
expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are 
in the forefront of actually providing health care.
  As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding 
the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best 
interest to ensure that the Congress has systematic access to the 
recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care 
practitioners.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 234

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CHARTER.

       The National Academies of Practice organized and 
     incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, is 
     hereby recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter.

     SEC. 2. CORPORATE POWERS.

       The National Academies of Practice (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``corporation'') shall have only those powers granted 
     to it through its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed 
     in the State in which it is incorporated and subject to the 
     laws of such State.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES OF CORPORATION.

       The purposes of the corporation shall be to honor persons 
     who have made significant contributions to the practice of 
     applied psychology, dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry, 
     osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and 
     other health care professions, and to improve the practices 
     in such professions by disseminating information about new 
     techniques and procedures.

     SEC. 4. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       With respect to service of process, the corporation shall 
     comply with the laws of the State in which it is incorporated 
     and those States in which it carries on its activities in 
     furtherance of its corporate purposes.

     SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.

       Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the 
     rights and privileges of members shall be as provided in the 
     bylaws of the corporation.

     SEC. 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; COMPOSITION; RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The composition and the responsibilities of the board of 
     directors of the corporation shall be as provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and in 
     conformity with the laws of the State in which it is 
     incorporated.

     SEC. 7. OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

       The officers of the corporation and the election of such 
     officers shall be as provided in the articles of 
     incorporation of the corporation and in conformity with the 
     laws of the State in which it is incorporated.

     SEC. 8. RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Use of Income and Assets.--No part of the income or 
     assets of the corporation shall inure to any member, officer, 
     or director of the corporation or be distributed to any such 
     person during the life of this charter. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to prevent the payment of 
     reasonable compensation to the officers of the corporation or 
     reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts 
     approved by the board of directors.
       (b) Loans.--The corporation shall not make any loan to any 
     officer, director, or employee of the corporation.
       (c) Political Activity.--The corporation, any officer, or 
     any director of the corporation, acting as such officer or 
     director, shall not contribute to, support, or otherwise 
     participate in any political activity or in any manner 
     attempt to influence legislation.
       (d) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The 
     corporation shall have no power to issue any shares of stock 
     nor to declare or pay any dividends.
       (e) Claims of Federal Approval.--The corporation shall not 
     claim congressional approval or Federal Government authority 
     for any of its activities.

     SEC. 9. LIABILITY.

       The corporation shall be liable for the acts of its 
     officers and agents when acting within the scope of their 
     authority.

     SEC. 10. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Books and Records of Account.--The corporation shall 
     keep correct and complete books and records of account and 
     shall keep minutes of any proceeding of the corporation 
     involving any of its members, the board of directors, or any 
     committee having authority under the board of directors.
       (b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The corporation shall 
     keep at its principal office a record of the names and 
     addresses of all members having the right to vote in any 
     proceeding of the corporation.
       (c) Right To Inspect Books and Records.--All books and 
     records of the corporation may be inspected by any member 
     having the right to vote, or by any agent or attorney of such 
     member, for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

[[Page 1014]]

       (d) Application of State Law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law.

     SEC. 11. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The corporation shall report annually to the Congress 
     concerning the activities of the corporation during the 
     preceding fiscal year. Such annual report shall be submitted 
     at the same time as is the report of the audit for such 
     fiscal year required by section 3 of the Act referred to in 
     section 11 of this Act. The report shall not be printed as a 
     public document.

     SEC. 12. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND OR REPEAL CHARTER.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly 
     reserved to the Congress.

     SEC. 13. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
     territories and possessions of the United States.

     SEC. 14. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

       The corporation shall maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 or any corresponding similar provision.

     SEC. 15. TERMINATION.

       If the corporation fails to comply with any of the 
     restrictions or provisions of this Act the charter granted by 
     this Act shall terminate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 235. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to 
participate in various health professions loan programs; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


        The U.S. Public Health Service Act Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to 
modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to 
provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the 
opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs
  Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with 
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan 
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much needed infusion of 
behavioral science expertise into our public health community of 
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution 
that is being made by our nation's psychologists toward solving some of 
our nation's most distressing problems.
  The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical 
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title 
VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for 
the recruitment of minorities, women and individuals from economically 
disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the 
provision of critical services to minority populations because often 
they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural 
framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community 
settings, where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued 
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health 
care services to underserved communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 235

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
     nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in 
     professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
     offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after 
     ``veterinary medicine''.
       (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate 
     program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary 
     medicine''; and
       (3) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional 
     psychology''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine'' 
     and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional 
     psychology''.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
     Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (as redesignated by section 106(a)(2)(E) of the 
     Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998) is 
     amended by striking ``clinical'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``professional''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 236. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
establish a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 the public health service act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
psychology post-doctoral program.
  Psychologists have made a unique contribution in serving the nation's 
medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is 
useful in addressing many of our most distressing concerns such as 
violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral 
disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-
doctoral program could be most effective in finding solutions to these 
pressing societal issues.
  Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in 
traditionally underserved settings or with underserved populations have 
been demonstrated to be successful in providing services to those same 
underserved during the years following the training experience. For 
example, mental health professional who have participated in these 
specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet 
their pay back obligations, but have continued to work in the public 
sector or with the underserved populations with whom they have been 
trained to work.
  While the doctorate in psychology provides broad based knowledge and 
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, the specialized post-
doctoral fellowship programs develop particular diagnostic and 
treatment skills required to effectively respond to these underserved 
populations. For example, what looks like severe depression in an 
elderly person might actually be withdrawal related to hearing loss, or 
what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently 
relocated from Southeast Asia might be reflective of a cultural value 
of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Each of 
these situations requires very different interventions, of course, and 
specialized assessment skills.
  Domestic violence is not just a problem for the criminal justice 
system, it is a significant public health problem. A single aspect of 
this issue, domestic violence against women, results in almost 100,000 
days of hospitalization, 30,000 emergency room visits and 40,000 visits 
to physicians each year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas 
are particularly high as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression 
in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in psychology of the 
rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing the 
problems.
  Given the changing demographics of the nation--the increasing life 
span and numbers of the elderly, the rising percentage of minority 
populations within the country, as well as an increased recognition of 
the long-term sequelae of violence and abuse--and given the 
demonstrated success and effectiveness of these kinds of specialized 
training programs, it is incumbent

[[Page 1015]]

upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that 
respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 236

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

       Part E of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294o et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 779. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to 
     and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage 
     the provision of psychological training and services in 
     underserved treatment areas.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall require, including a 
     certification that such individual--
       ``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate 
     program in psychology provided by an accredited institution 
     at the time such grant is awarded;
       ``(B) will provide services in a medically underserved 
     population during the period of such grant;
       ``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c); 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or 
     contract under this section, an institution shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require, 
     including a certification that such institution--
       ``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides 
     psychological services in medically underserved areas or to 
     medically underserved populations (including entities that 
     care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions, 
     and prisons);
       ``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under 
     this section to provide financial assistance in the form of 
     fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the 
     requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(C) will not use in excess of 10 percent of amounts 
     provided under this section to pay for the administrative 
     costs of any fellowship programs established with such funds; 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurance as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who 
     receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall 
     certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue 
     to provide the type of services for which such grant or 
     fellowship is awarded for at least 1 year after the term of 
     the grant or fellowship has expired.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section, including 
     regulations that define the terms `medically underserved 
     areas' or `medically unserved populations'.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 237. A bill to allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations 
required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
offenders with mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical 
social worker; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       the psychiatric and psychological examinations act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our nation's clinical 
social workers to provide their mental health expertise to the federal 
judiciary.
  I feel that the time has come to allow our nation's judicial system 
to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health 
expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would 
be very much in our nation's best interest.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 237

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

       Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended, in the first sentence, by striking ``psychiatrist or 
     psychologist'' and inserting ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or 
     clinical social worker''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 238. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
grade provided for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


         U.S. Military Chief Nurse Corps Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce an amendment that would 
change the existing law regarding the designated position and grade for 
the Chief Nurses of the United States Army, the United States Navy, and 
the United States Air Force. Currently, the Chief Nurses of the three 
branches of the military are one-star general officer grades; this law 
would change the current grade to Major General in the Army and Air 
Force and Rear Admiral (upper half) in the Navy.
  Our military Chief Nurses have an awesome responsibility--their scope 
of duties include peacetime and wartime health care doctrine, standards 
and policy for all nursing personnel within their respective branches. 
They are responsible for 80,000 Army, 5,200 Navy, and 20,000 Air Force 
officer and enlisted nursing personnel in the active, reserve and guard 
components of the military. This level of responsibility certainly 
supports the need to change the grade for the Chief Nurses which would 
ensure that they have an appropriate voice in Defense Health Program 
executive management.
  Organizations are best served when the leadership is composed of a 
mix of specialties--of equal rank--who bring their unique talents to 
the policy setting and decision-making process. I believe it is time to 
ensure that military health care organizations utilize the expertise 
and unique contributions of the military Chief Nurses.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 238

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASED GRADE FOR HEADS OF NURSE CORPS.

       (a) Army.--Section 3069(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking out ``brigadier general'' in the 
     second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``major 
     general''.
       (b) Navy.--The first sentence of section 5150(c) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``rear admiral (upper half) in the case of 
     an officer in the Nurse Corps or'' after ``for promotion to 
     the grade of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``in the case of an officer in the Medical 
     Service Corps'' after ``rear admiral (lower half)''.
       (c) Air Force.--Section 8069(b) of such title is amended by 
     striking out ``brigadier general'' in the second sentence and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``major general''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans' Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


           the perkins county rural water system act of 1999

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation 
to authorize a critically important rural water system in South Dakota, 
the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to 
have my good friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, 
as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which we 
introduced during the 105th. This legislation is also strongly 
supported by the State of South Dakota and local project sponsors, who 
have demonstrated that support by

[[Page 1016]]

agreeing to substantial financial contributions from the local level.
  During the 105th Congress the Perkins County Rural Water System Act 
was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as 
well as the full Senate. Unfortunately, this legislation was caught up 
in part of a larger legislative package, but I am hopeful the Senate 
will again support this important drinking water project and pass this 
legislation early this year.
  Like many parts of South Dakota, Perkins County has insufficient 
water supplies of reasonable quality available, and the water supplies 
that are available do not meet the minimum health and safety standards, 
thereby posing a threat to public health and safety.
  In addition to improving the health of residents in the region, I 
strongly believe that this rural drinking water delivery project will 
help to stabilize the rural economy as well. Water is a basic commodity 
and is essential if we are to foster rural development in many parts of 
rural South Dakota, including the Perkins County area.
  The ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999'' authorizes the 
Bureau of Reclamation to construct a Perkins County Rural Water System 
providing service to approximately 2,500 people, including the 
communities of Lemmon and Bison, as well as rural residents. The 
Perkins County Rural Water System is located in northwestern South 
Dakota along the South Dakota/North Dakota border and it will be an 
extension of an existing rural water system in North Dakota, the 
Southwest Pipeline Project. The State of South Dakota has worked 
closely with the State of North Dakota over the years on the Perkins 
County connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project. A feasibility 
study completed in 1994 looked at several alternatives for a dependable 
water supply, and the connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project is 
clearly the most feasible for the Perkins County area.
  Mr. President, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceeding poor 
quality, and the Perkins County rural water project is an effort to 
help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to 
the people of Perkins County, South Dakota. I am a strong believer in 
the federal government's role in rural water delivery, and I hope to 
continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the 
country. I urge my colleagues to support this important rural water 
legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move forward on 
enactment as quickly as possible.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 239

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Perkins County Rural Water 
     System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there are insufficient water supplies of reasonable 
     quality available to the members of the Perkins County Rural 
     Water System located in Perkins County, South Dakota, and the 
     water supplies that are available do not meet minimum health 
     and safety standards, thereby posing a threat to public 
     health and safety;
       (2) in 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature authorized 
     and directed the State Water Commission to conduct the 
     Southwest Area Water Supply Study, which included water 
     service to a portion of Perkins County, South Dakota;
       (3) amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit 
     Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the 
     Southwest Pipeline project as an eligible project for Federal 
     cost share participation;
       (4) the Perkins County Rural Water System has continued to 
     be recognized by the State of North Dakota, the Southwest 
     Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Commission, the 
     Department of the Interior, and Congress as a component of 
     the Southwest Pipeline Project; and
       (5) the best available, reliable, and safe rural and 
     municipal water supply to serve the needs of the Perkins 
     County Rural Water System, Inc., members is the waters of the 
     Missouri River as delivered by the Southwest Pipeline Project 
     in North Dakota.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and 
     industrial water supply for the members of the Perkins County 
     Rural Water Supply System, Inc., in Perkins County, South 
     Dakota;
       (2) to assist the members of the Perkins County Rural Water 
     Supply System, Inc., in developing safe and adequate 
     municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies; and
       (3) to promote the implementation of water conservation 
     programs by the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means the study entitled ``Feasibility Study for Rural Water 
     System for Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.'', as 
     amended in March 1995.
       (2) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
     construction budget'' means the description of the total 
     amount of funds that are needed for the construction of the 
     water supply system, as described in the feasibility study.
       (3) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
     term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' 
     means all power requirements that are incidental to the 
     operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water 
     treatment facilities, cooling facilities, reservoirs, and 
     pipelines to the point of delivery of water by the Perkins 
     County Rural Water System to each entity that distributes 
     water at retail to individual users.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation.
       (5) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a 
     nonprofit corporation, established and operated substantially 
     in accordance with the feasibility study.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     water supply system for the Federal share of the costs of--
       (1) the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system; and
       (2) repairs to existing public water distribution systems 
     to ensure conservation of the resources and to make the 
     systems functional under the new water supply system.
       (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide 
     for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     supplies, mitigation of wetlands areas, repairs to existing 
     public water distribution systems, and water conservation in 
     Perkins County, South Dakota.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under 
     subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed 
     the Federal share under section 10.
       (d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of 
     the water supply system until--
       (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met with respect to 
     the water supply system; and
       (2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water 
     conservation program have been prepared and submitted to 
     Congress for a period of not less than 90 days before the 
     commencement of construction of the system.

     SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result 
     of the construction and operation of the water supply system 
     shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological 
     equivalency, concurrent with project construction, as 
     provided in the feasibility study.

     SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

       (a) In General.--From power designated for future 
     irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     River Basin Program, the Western Area Power Administration 
     shall make available the capacity and energy required to meet 
     the pumping and incidental operational requirements of the 
     water supply system during the period beginning May 1 and 
     ending October 31 of each year.
       (b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available on the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
     profit basis.
       (2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase its 
     entire electric service requirements, including the capacity 
     and energy made available under subsection (a), from a 
     qualified preference power supplier that itself purchases 
     power from the Western Area Power Administration.
       (3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy 
     made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power 
     rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the 
     Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is 
     delivered by the Administration.
       (4) It shall be agreed by contract among--
       (A) the Western Area Power Administration;

[[Page 1017]]

       (B) the power supplier with which the water supply system 
     contracts under paragraph (2);
       (C) the power supplier of the entity described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (D) the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.;

     that in the case of the capacity and energy made available 
     under subsection (a), the benefit of the rate schedule 
     described in paragraph (3) shall be passed through to the 
     water supply system, except that the power supplier of the 
     water supply system shall not be precluded from including, in 
     the charges of the supplier to the water system for the 
     electric service, the other usual and customary charges of 
     the supplier.

     SEC. 7. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

       This Act does not limit the authorization for water 
     projects in South Dakota and North Dakota under law in effect 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. WATER RIGHTS.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an 
     interstate compact governing water;
       (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or 
     by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
       (3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
     interstate compact, dealing with water quality or disposal; 
     or
       (4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.

     SEC. 9. FEDERAL SHARE.

       The Federal share under section 4 shall be 75 percent of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 10. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

       The non-Federal share under section 4 shall be 25 percent 
     of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 11. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary may provide construction 
     oversight to the water supply system for areas of the water 
     supply system.
       (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds 
     used by the Secretary for planning and construction of the 
     water supply system may not exceed an amount equal to 3 
     percent of the amount provided in the total project 
     construction budget for the portion of the project to be 
     constructed in Perkins County, South Dakota.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the 
     water system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans' Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


            the veterans' health administration act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to amend 
Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain 
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional 
psychologists in the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA).
  The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best 
health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who 
have served our country in the Armed Forces.
  Recently, a quite distressing situation regarding the care of our 
veterans has come to my attention. In particular, the recruiting and 
retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs has become a significant problem.
  The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the 
behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a 
significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, 
substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have 
received funding from the Congress in recent years.
  Certainly, psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are 
essential to the successful implementation of these programs. However, 
the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA (more 
than 5% and 8% respectively as reported in one recent survey) might 
seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall 
patient care in the VHA.
  Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of 
factors including a pay scale not commensurate with private sector 
rates and the low number of clinical and professional psychologists 
appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 
Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience and are hired 
immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes 
up to six months or more.
  Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more 
significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40% of VHA 
psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. 
Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have 
almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. 
Furthermore, under the present system psychologists cannot be 
recognized nor appropriately compensated for excellence or for taking 
on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs.
  In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA 
supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with 
behavioral and mental health disorders are deserving of better 
psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are 
currently receiving.
  Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care 
providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without 
question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention 
difficulties which I have addressed. Title 38 appointment authority for 
psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention 
problems. The length of time to recruit psychologists could be 
abbreviated by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated 
by the Office of Personnel Management. This would also encourage the 
recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing 
the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being 
able to offer that applicant a position.
  It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated 
with the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial 
incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. 
Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities 
as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, 
implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the 
effectiveness and/or efficiency of patient care, making significant 
contributions to the science of psychology, earning the ABPP displomate 
state, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.
  The conversion of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this 
amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment 
issues and enhance the quality of care for our Nation's veterans and 
their families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 239

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF 
                   PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS' 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out ``who hold diplomas as 
     diplomates in psychology from an accrediting authority 
     approved by the Secretary''.
       (b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists, 
     certified or''; and

[[Page 1018]]

       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists, 
     certified or''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs shall 
     begin to make appointments of professional psychologists in 
     the Veterans' Health Administration under section 7401(3) of 
     title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Grams, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
                       Grassley, and Mr. Harkin):

  S. 244. A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and 
construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           THE LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am proud to be introducing 
legislation, along with my colleagues, the Minority Leader Senator 
Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley of Iowa, 
and Senator Wellstone and Senator Grams of Minnesota, to authorize the 
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. We introduced similar legislation 
last Congress, and I am pleased with the progress we made in the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee held a hearing 
and passed the legislation during the 105th Congress, and I look 
forward to again working closely with my colleagues for timely 
consideration of this important measure.
  The Lewis and Clark Rural Water system is made up of 22 rural water 
systems and communities in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa 
and southwestern Minnesota who have joined together in an effort to 
cooperatively address the dual problems facing the delivery of drinking 
water in this region--inadequate quantities of water and poor quality 
water.
  The region has seen substantial growth and development in recent 
years, and studies have shown that future water needs will be 
significantly greater than the current available supply. Most of the 
people who are served by ten of the water utilities in the proposed 
Lewis and Clark project area currently enforce water restrictions on a 
seasonal basis. Almost half of the membership has water of such poor 
quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking 
water. More than two-thirds rely on shallow aquifers as their primary 
source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to 
contamination by surface activities.
  The Lewis and Clark system will be a supplemental supply of drinking 
water for its 22 members, acting as a treated, bulk delivery system. 
The distribution to deliver water to individual users will continue 
through the existing systems used by each member utility. This 
``regionalization approach'' to solving these water supply and quality 
problems enables the Missouri River to provide a source of clean, safe 
drinking water to more than 180,000 individuals. A source of water 
which none of the members of Lewis and Clark could afford on their own.
  The proposed system would help to stabilize the regional rural 
economy by providing water to Sioux Falls, the hub city in the region, 
as well as numerous small communities and individual farms in South 
Dakota and portions of Iowa and Minnesota.
  The States of South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota have all authorized 
the project and local sponsors have demonstrated a financial commitment 
to this project through state grants, local water development district 
grants and membership dues. The State of South Dakota has already 
contributed more than $400,000.
  Mr. President, I do not believe our needs get any more basic than 
good quality, reliable drinking water, and I appreciate the fact that 
Congress has shown support for efforts to improve drinking water 
supplies in South Dakota. I look forward to continue working with my 
colleagues to have that support extended to the Lewis and Clark Rural 
Water System
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 244

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark Rural Water 
     System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Environmental enhancement.--The term ``environmental 
     enhancement'' means the wetland and wildlife enhancement 
     activities that are carried out substantially in accordance 
     with the environmental enhancement component of the 
     feasibility study.
       (2) Environmental enhancement component.--The term 
     ``environmental enhancement component'' means the component 
     described in the report entitled ``Wetlands and Wildlife 
     Enhancement for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System'', 
     dated April 1991, that is included in the feasibility study.
       (3) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means the study entitled ``Feasibility Level Evaluation of a 
     Missouri River Regional Water Supply for South Dakota, Iowa 
     and Minnesota'', dated September 1993, that includes a water 
     conservation plan, environmental report, and environmental 
     enhancement component.
       (4) Member entity.--The term ``member entity'' means a 
     rural water system or municipality that signed a Letter of 
     Commitment to participate in the water supply system.
       (5) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
     construction budget'' means the description of the total 
     amount of funds needed for the construction of the water 
     supply system, as contained in the feasibility study.
       (6) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
     term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' 
     means all power requirements that are incidental to the 
     operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water 
     treatment facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines up to the 
     point of delivery of water by the water supply system to each 
     member entity that distributes water at retail to individual 
     users.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a 
     nonprofit corporation established and operated substantially 
     in accordance with the feasibility study.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     water supply system for the planning and construction of the 
     water supply system.
       (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide 
     for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     supplies, environmental enhancement, mitigation of wetland 
     areas, and water conservation in--
       (1) Lake County, McCook County, Minnehaha County, Turner 
     County, Lincoln County, Clay County, and Union County, in 
     southeastern South Dakota;
       (2) Rock County and Nobles County, in southwestern 
     Minnesota; and
       (3) Lyon County, Sioux County, Osceola County, O'Brien 
     County, Dickinson County, and Clay County, in northwestern 
     Iowa.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under 
     subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed 
     the amount of funds authorized under section 10.
       (d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of 
     the water supply system until--
       (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met;
       (2) a final engineering report is prepared and submitted to 
     Congress not less than 90 days before the commencement of 
     construction of the water supply system; and
       (3) a water conservation program is developed and 
     implemented.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT 
                   COMPONENT.

       (a) Initial Development.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     and other funds available to the water supply system and 
     other private, State, and Federal entities, for the initial 
     development of the environmental enhancement component.
       (b) Nonreimbursement.--Funds provided under subsection (a) 
     shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.

     SEC. 5. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The water supply system shall establish a 
     water conservation program

[[Page 1019]]

     that ensures that users of water from the water supply system 
     use the best practicable technology and management techniques 
     to conserve water use.
       (b) Requirements.--The water conservation programs shall 
     include--
       (1) low consumption performance standards for all newly 
     installed plumbing fixtures;
       (2) leak detection and repair programs;
       (3) rate schedules that do not include declining block rate 
     schedules for municipal households and special water users 
     (as defined in the feasibility study);
       (4) public education programs and technical assistance to 
     member entities; and
       (5) coordinated operation among each rural water system, 
     and each water supply facility in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in the service area of the system.
       (c) Review and Revision.--The programs described in 
     subsection (b) shall contain provisions for periodic review 
     and revision, in cooperation with the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a 
     result of the construction and operation of the water supply 
     system shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on 
     ecological equivalency, concurrent with project construction, 
     as provided in the feasibility study.

     SEC. 7. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

       (a) In General.--From power designated for future 
     irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     Basin program, the Western Area Power Administration shall 
     make available the capacity and energy required to meet the 
     pumping and incidental operational requirements of the water 
     supply system during the period beginning on May 1 and ending 
     on October 31 of each year.
       (b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available on the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
     profit basis.
       (2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase the 
     entire electric service requirements of the system, including 
     the capacity and energy made available under subsection (a), 
     from a qualified preference power supplier that itself 
     purchases power from the Western Area Power Administration.
       (3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy 
     made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power 
     rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the 
     Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is 
     delivered by the Administration.
       (4) It is agreed by contract among--
       (A) the Western Area Power Administration;
       (B) the power supplier with which the water supply system 
     contracts under paragraph (2);
       (C) the power supplier of the entity described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (D) the water supply system;

     that in the case of the capacity and energy made available 
     under subsection (a), the benefit of the rate schedule 
     described in paragraph (3) shall be passed through to the 
     water supply system, except that the power supplier of the 
     water supply system shall not be precluded from including, in 
     the charges of the supplier to the water system for the 
     electric service, the other usual and customary charges of 
     the supplier.

     SEC. 8. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

       This Act does not limit the authorization for water 
     projects in the States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota 
     under law in effect on or after the ate of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 9. WATER RIGHTS.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an 
     interstate compact governing water;
       (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or 
     by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
       (3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
     interstate compact, governing water quality or disposal; or
       (4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.

     SEC. 10. COST SHARING.

       (a) Federal Cost Share.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall provide funds equal to 80 percent of--
       (A) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 3;
       (B) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in 
     the budget for planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 3; and
       (C) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after September 1, 1993.
       (2) Sioux falls.--The Secretary shall provide funds for the 
     city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in an amount equal to 50 
     percent of the incremental cost to the city of participation 
     in the project.
       (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     non-Federal share of the costs allocated to the water supply 
     system shall be 20 percent of the amounts described in 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Sioux falls.--The non-Federal cost-share for the city 
     of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be 50 percent of the 
     incremental cost to the city of participation in the project.

     SEC. 11. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary may allow the Director of 
     the Bureau of Reclamation to provide project construction 
     oversight to the water supply system and environmental 
     enhancement component for the service area of the water 
     supply system described in section 3(b).
       (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds 
     used by the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for 
     planning and construction of the water supply system shall 
     not exceed the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the 
     amount provided in the total project construction budget for 
     the entire project construction period.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $226,320,000, of which not less than $8,487,000 shall be 
     used for the initial development of the environmental 
     enhancement component under section 4, to remain available 
     until expended.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues for the 
introduction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1999. I 
would like to thank Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle for their hard 
work and dedication to this project over the past two Congresses.
  Mr. President, the Southwestern corner of Minnesota, along with 
adjoining areas in South Dakota and Iowa, is now served by a wholly 
inadequate water system which is highly susceptible to drought, leading 
most of the communities in this region to impose severe water 
restrictions.
  The situation has forced communities throughout the region to explore 
aggressively alternative water supplies. Communities such as Luverne 
and Worthington, both in southwestern Minnesota, have spent tens of 
thousands of dollars yearly in an unsuccessful search for another water 
source, always with the same disappointing results. Eventually, 
however, it was determined that by working together with communities 
throughout the region and in all three states, a workable solution 
might be found.
  That solution is the bill we are introducing today. Under this 
legislation, local communities will come together with the affected 
states and the federal government to form a strong, financial 
partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while 
reducing the cost to the American taxpayers.
  The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a fiscally responsible 
project that invests in the future economic health of the tri-state 
region by strengthening its critical utilities infrastructure. With 
increasing population growth, economic development, new federal 
drinking water regulations, water demands, and shallow wells and 
aquifers which are subject to contamination, it is critical that the 
area encompassed by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System establish a 
clean, reliable water source to meet the demand for future water use 
that cannot be met by present resources.
  Mr. President, this legislation has been before the Senate for the 
last two Congresses. Last year, we were successful in passing the 
legislation through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This 
year, we must see this bill passed by the Senate and the House and sent 
to the President for his signature.
  Providing safe and available drinking water to our communities is one 
of the most basic functions of government. It is not a partisan issue, 
and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my 
colleagues and the governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in 
supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 245. A bill to reauthorize the Federal programs to prevent 
violence against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                   VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill titled 
``Violence Against Women Act of 1999.'' I expect that this will be one 
of several

[[Page 1020]]

bills introduced this week in both the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, reflecting an array of ideas and views on the 
reauthorization of existing programs and the creation of new ones.
  Let me say at the outset, that one of my proudest accomplishments in 
this body was my work with Senator Joe Biden earlier this decade 
culminating in the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. I 
have great hopes that Senator Biden and I can duplicate that strong 
bipartisan effort in the 106th Congress.
  Five years after the passage of VAWA I, I think it is fair to say 
that this Act has significantly enhanced the efforts of law enforcement 
in combating violence against women and improved the services available 
to victims of domestic violence in my home state of Utah and across the 
nation.
  But five years later, it is time to advance the process in three 
major respects: (1) it is time to review and evaluate the effectiveness 
of programs created by the 1994 Act and to reexamine the adequacy of 
the funding levels for these programs; (2) it is time to review law 
enforcement's efforts and successes as a result of the 1994 Act; and 
(3) it is time to survey and consider the need for new programs and 
further changes in the law.
  Thus, while I am today introducing a bill that reauthorizes the 
majority of current programs, many at increased funding levels, I think 
that these programs need first to be evaluated as to whether available 
funds are being used in the most effective way possible. Further, I 
know that Senator Biden has a number of ideas for new programs and 
changes in the law, and I look forward to working with him on some of 
those ideas.
  Finally, let me just note that my bill also contains some new 
proposals regarding campus violence, battered immigrant women, and the 
victims of domestic violence on military bases around the country. Like 
many Americans, I watched with some horror on Sunday night as ``60 
Minutes'' detailed the degree of domestic violence on and around our 
military bases and the apparent lack of serious responsiveness by 
persons in charge. This situation, if accurately portrayed, is not 
acceptable, and this Administration needs to act swiftly and 
effectively to change what is reportedly happening. To that end, my 
bill includes a provision requiring a prompt review and report by the 
Secretary of Defense on the incidence of and response to domestic 
violence on our military bases.
  In sum, Mr. President, I hope that enacting effective legislation to 
combat violence against women will be a priority in the 106th Congress. 
I intend to do my best, working in a bipartisan fashion, to ensure that 
it is.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Kohl, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 247. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to reform the 
copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of broadcast 
signals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the satellite home viewer improvements act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will help provide for greater consumer choice and competition in 
television services, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act of 
1999.'' Joining me in introducing this bill are the Majority Leader, 
Senator Lott, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator McCain, and my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senators DeWine and Kohl.
  The options consumers have for viewing television entertainment have 
vastly increased since that fateful day in September 1927 when 
television inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, together with 
his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission in 
the Farnsworth's home workshop: a single black line rotated from 
vertical to horizontal. Both the forms of entertainment and the 
technologies for delivering that entertainment have proliferated over 
the 70 years since that day. In the 1940's and 1950's, televisions 
began arriving in an increasing number of homes to pick up 
entertainment being broadcast into a growing number of cities and 
towns.
  In the late 1960's and early 1970's, cable television began offering 
communities more television choices by initially providing community 
antenna systems for receiving broadcast television signals, and later 
by offering new created-for-cable entertainment. The development of 
cable television made dramatic strides with the enactment of the cable 
compulsory license in 1976, providing an efficient way of clearing 
copyright rights for the retransmission of broadcast signals over cable 
systems.
  In the 1980's, television viewers began to be able to receive 
television entertainment with their own home satellite equipment, and 
the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 helped develop a 
system of providing options for television service to Americans who 
lived in areas too remote to receive television signals over the air or 
via cable.
  Much has changed since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act was 
adopted in 1988. The Satellite Home Viewer Act was originally intended 
to ensure that households that could not get television in any other 
way, traditionally provided through broadcast or cable, would be able 
to get television signals via satellite. The market and satellite 
industry has changed substantially since 1988. Many of the difficulties 
and controversies associated with the satellite license have been at 
least partly a product of the satellite business attempting to move 
from a predominately need-based rural niche service to a full service 
video delivery competitor in all markets, urban and rural.
  Now, many market advocates both in and out of Congress are looking to 
satellite carriers to compete directly with cable companies for 
viewership, because we believe that an increasingly competitive market 
is better for consumers both in terms of cost and the diversity of 
programming available. The bill I introduce today will move us toward 
that kind of robust competition.
  In short, this bill is focused on changes that we can make this year 
to move the satellite television industry to the next level, making it 
a full competitor in the multi-channel video delivery market. It has 
been said time and again that a major, and perhaps the biggest, 
impediment to satellite's ability to be a strong competitor to cable is 
its current inability to provide local broadcast signals. (See, e.g., 
Business Week (22 Dec. 1997) p. 84.) This problem has been partly 
technological and partly legal.
  Even as we speak, the technological hurdles to local retransmission 
of broadcast signals are being lowered substantially. Emerging 
technology is now enabling the satellite industry to begin to offer 
television viewers their own local programming of news, weather, 
sports, and entertainment, with digital quality picture and sound. This 
will mean that viewers in the remoter areas of my large home state of 
Utah will be able to watch television programming originating in Salt 
Lake City, rather than New York or California. Utahns in remote areas 
will have access to local weather and other locally and regionally 
relevant information. In fact, one satellite carrier is already 
providing such a service in Utah.
  Today, with this bill, we hope to begin removing the legal 
impediments to use of this emerging technology to make local 
retransmission of broadcast signals a reality for all subscribers. The 
most important result will be that the constituents of all my 
colleagues will finally have a choice for full service multi-channel 
video programming. They will be able to choose cable or one of a number 
of satellite carriers. This should foster an environment of 
proliferating choice and lowered prices, all to the benefit of 
consumers, our constituents.
  To that end, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act'' makes the

[[Page 1021]]

following changes in the copyright governing satellite television 
transmissions:
  It creates a new copyright license which allows satellite carriers to 
retransmit a local television station to households and businesses 
throughout that station's local market, just like cable does, and sets 
a zero copyright rate for providing this service.
  It extends the satellite compulsory licenses for both local and 
distant signals, which are now set to expire at the end of the year, 
until 2004.
  It cuts the copyright rates paid for distant signals by 30 or 45 
percent, depending on the type of signal.
  It allows consumers to switch from cable to satellite service for 
network signals without waiting a 90-day period now required in the 
law.
  It allows for a national Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed.
  Many of my colleagues in this chamber will recognize this legislation 
as substantively identical to a bill reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee last year. I am pleased with the degree of 
cooperation and consensus we were able to forge with respect to this 
legislation last year, and I hope that we can pick up where we left off 
to bring this bill before the Senate for swift consideration and 
approval.
  As I indicated late in the last Congress, the bill I am introducing 
is intended to be a piece of a larger joint work product to be crafted 
in conjunction with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. Once 
again in the 106th Congress, it is our intention that the Judiciary 
Committee will move forward with consideration of the copyright 
legislation I am introducing today, which, as I indicated, is 
cosponsored by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. The Commerce 
Committee will proceed simultaneously to consider separate legislation 
to be introduced by Chairman McCain to address related communications 
amendments regarding such important areas as the must-carry and 
retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers upon which 
the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's distant 
signal eligibility process. It is our joint intention to combine our 
respective work product as two titles of the same bill in a way that 
will clearly delineate the work product of each committee, but combine 
them into the seamless whole necessary to make the licenses work for 
consumers and the affected industries.
  We need to act quickly on this legislation. The Satellite Home Viewer 
Act sunsets at the end of this year, placing at risk the service of 
many of the 11 million satellite subscribers nationwide. Many of our 
constituents are confused about the status of satellite service because 
of a court order requiring the cessation of distant-signal satellite 
service in February and April to as many as 2.5 million subscribers 
nationally who have been adjudged ineligible for distant signal service 
under current law. The granting of the local license, together with 
some resolution of the eligibility rules for distant signals and a more 
consumer-friendly process can help bring clarity to these consumers.
  Let me again thank the Majority Leader for his interest in and 
leadership with respect to these issues, and the Chairman of the 
Commerce Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this 
process. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
who have worked on this legislation. This bill is a product of a 
bipartisan effort with Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl. I look forward 
to continued collaboration with them and with our other colleagues to 
help hasten more vigorous competition in the television delivery market 
and the ever-widening consumer choice that will follow it.
  I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Section-by-Section Description of S. 247

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The title of the bill is the ``Satellite Home Viewer 
     Improvements Act''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; SECONDARY 
                   TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN 
                   LOCAL MARKETS.

       Section 2 of the bill creates a new copyright compulsory 
     license, found at section 122 of title 17 of the United 
     States Code, for the retransmission of television broadcast 
     stations by satellite carriers to subscribers located within 
     the local markets of those stations. In order to be eligible 
     for this compulsory license, a satellite carrier must be in 
     full compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of 
     the Federal Communications Commission, including any must-
     carry obligations imposed upon the satellite carrier by the 
     Commission or by law.
       Because the copyrighted programming contained on local 
     broadcast programming is already licensed with the 
     expectation that all viewers in the local market will be able 
     to view the programming, the new section 122 license is a 
     royalty-free license. Satellite carriers must, however, 
     provide local broadcasters with lists of their subscribers 
     receiving local stations so that broadcasters may verify that 
     satellite carriers are making proper use of the license. The 
     subscriber information supplied to broadcasters is for 
     verification purposes only, and may not be used by 
     broadcasters for other reasons.
       Satellite carriers are liable for copyright infringement, 
     and subject to the full remedies of the Copyright Act, if 
     they violate one or more of the following requirements of the 
     section 122 license. First, satellite carriers may not in any 
     way willfully alter the programming contained on a local 
     broadcast station.
       Second, satellite carriers may not use the section 122 
     license to retransmit a television station to a subscriber 
     located outside the local market of the station. If a carrier 
     willfully or repeatedly violates this limitation on a 
     nationwide basis, then the carrier may be enjoined from 
     retransmitting that signal. If the broadcast station involved 
     is a network station, then the carrier could lose the right 
     to retransmit any network stations affiliated with that same 
     network. If the willful or repeated violation of the 
     restriction is performed on a local or regional basis, then 
     the right to retransmit the station (or, if a network 
     station, then all other stations affiliated with that 
     network) can be enjoined on a local or regional basis, 
     depending upon the circumstances. In addition to termination 
     of service on a nationwide or local or regional basis, 
     statutory damages are available up to $250,000 for each 6-
     month period during which the pattern or practice of 
     violations was carried out. Satellite carriers have the 
     burden of proving that they are not improperly making use of 
     the section 122 license to serve subscribers outside the 
     local markets of the television broadcast stations they are 
     providing.
       The section 122 license is not limited to private home 
     viewing, as is the section 119 compulsory license, so that 
     satellite carriers may make use of it to serve commercial 
     establishments as well as homes. The local market of a 
     television broadcast station for purposes of the section 122 
     license will be defined by the Federal Communications 
     Commission as part of its broadcast carriage rules for 
     satellite carriers.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 119 OF 
                   TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 3 of the bill extends the expiration date of the 
     current section 119 satellite compulsory license from 
     December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2004.

     SEC. 4. COMPUTATION OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

       Section 4 of the bill reduces the 27 cent royalty fee 
     adopted last year by the Librarian of Congress for the 
     retransmission of network and superstation signals by 
     satellite carriers under the section 119 license. The 27 cent 
     rate for superstations is reduced by 30 percent per 
     subscriber per month, and the 27 cent rate for network 
     stations is reduced by 45 percent per subscriber per month.
       In addition, section 119(c) of title 17 is amended to 
     clarify that in royalty distribution proceedings conducted 
     under section 802 of the Copyright Act, the Public 
     Broadcasting Service may act as agent for all public 
     television copyright claimants and all Public Broadcasting 
     Service member stations.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 5 of the bill adds two new definitions to the 
     current section 119 satellite license. The ``unserved 
     household'' definition is modified to eliminate the 90 day 
     waiting period for satellite subscribers to wait after 
     termination of their cable service until they are eligible 
     for satellite service of network signals. A new definition of 
     a ``local network station'' is added to clarify that the 
     section 119 license is limited to the retransmission of 
     distant television stations, and not local stations.

     SEC. 6. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICES SATELLITE FEED.

       Section 6 of the bill extends the section 119 license to 
     cover the copyrighted programming carried upon the Public 
     Broadcasting's national satellite feed. The national 
     satellite feed is treated as a superstation for compulsory 
     license purposes. Also, the bill requires that PBS must 
     certify to the Copyright Office on an annual basis that the 
     PBS membership continues to support retransmission

[[Page 1022]]

     of the national satellite feed under the section 119 license.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
                   REGULATIONS.

       Section 7 of the bill amends the current section 119 
     license to make it contingent upon full compliance with all 
     rules and regulations of the FCC. This provision mirrors the 
     requirement imposed upon cable operators under the cable 
     compulsory license.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this bill become effective on 
     January 1, 1999, with the exception of section 4 which 
     becomes effective on July 1, 1999.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the new 
session, I am joining Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee to 
introduce a bill to help protect satellite TV viewers. I know it also 
has the support of subcommittee Chairman, Senator DeWine, and its 
ranking member, Senator Kohl. I appreciate the fact that Republicans 
and Democrats are working together on this issue. I also want to thank 
the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for his assistance on this issue as 
well as the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain and 
their ranking member, Senator Hollings. I look forward to working with 
all Senators on this matter.
  I have received hundreds of calls from Vermonters last year whose 
satellite TV service was about to be terminated. I am still hearing 
from Vermonters from all over the state. They are steaming mad and so 
am I.
  This is an outrageous situation--the law must be changed and the 
Federal Communications Commission has to do its job.
  I have worked to change the law over the last two years to try to 
avoid the situation we now face. I have also insisted that the FCC 
change its unrealistic rules that will result in needless terminations 
of service to Vermont families.
  Unfortunately, we are on a collision course because of two Court 
orders affecting CBS and Fox signals offered to home dish owners, an 
inability to pass needed legislation last year, and the unwillingness 
of the FCC to step in and alleviate this situation.
  Before I go into the details I want to point out that this bipartisan 
bill represents very good public policy. It will increase competition 
among TV providers, give consumers more choices, preserve the local 
affiliate TV system, act to lower cable and satellite rates, and will 
eventually offer local news, weather and programming over satellite TV 
instead of programming from distant stations. Over the next couple 
years, this initiative can solve the problem of losing satellite 
service by allowing satellites to offer a full array of local TV 
stations.
  It will lead to lower rates for consumers because the bill creates 
head-to-head competition between cable and satellite TV providers. The 
bill will allow households who want to subscribe to this new satellite 
TV service, called ``local-into-local''--to receive all local Vermont 
TV stations over the satellite.
  The goal is to offer Vermonters with more choices, more TV 
selections, but at lower rates. In areas of the country where there is 
this full competition with cable providers, rates to customers are 
considerably lower.
  Thus, over time this initiative will permit satellite TV providers to 
offer a full selection of all local TV channels to viewers throughout 
most of Vermont, as well as the typical complement of superstations, 
weather and sports channels, PBS, movies and a variety of other 
channels. This means that local Vermont TV stations will be available 
over satellite dishes to many areas of Vermont currently not served by 
satellite or by cable.
  Under current law, it is illegal for satellite TV providers to offer 
distant TV channels over satellite when you live in an area where you 
are normally likely to get a clear local TV signal with a regular 
rooftop antenna.
  In addition, under current law many families must get their local TV 
signals over an antenna which often does not provide a clear picture. 
This bill will remove that legal limitation and allow satellite 
carriers to offer local TV signals to viewers no matter where they live 
in Vermont.
  To take advantage of this, satellite carriers over time will have to 
follow the rules that cable providers have to follow. This will mean 
that they must carry all local Vermont TV stations and not carry 
distant network stations that compete with local stations.
  Presently Vermonters receive network satellite signals with 
programming from stations in other states--in other words receive a CBS 
station from another state but not WCAX, the Burlington CBS affiliate.
  By allowing satellite providers to offer a larger variety of 
programming, including local stations, the satellite industry would be 
able to compete with cable, and the cable industry will be competing 
with satellite carriers.
  All the members of the Judiciary Committee have worked on this matter 
and I appreciate their efforts. On November 12, of 1997, Chairman Hatch 
and I held a full Committee hearing on satellite issues to try to avoid 
needless cutoffs of satellite TV service while, at the same time, 
working to protect the network affiliate TV broadcast system.
  Soon after, on March 5, 1998, we introduced the Hatch-Leahy satellite 
bill (S. 1720) to address these concerns. This bill was amended in 
Committee with a Hatch-Leahy substitute and was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee unanimously on October 1, 1998.
  In the meantime, in July 1998, a federal district court judge in 
Florida found that PrimeTime 24 was offering distant CBS and Fox 
television signals to more than a million households in the U.S. in a 
manner inconsistent with its compulsory license that permits such 
satellite service only to households who do not get at least ``grade B 
intensity'' service. Under a preliminary injunction, satellite service 
to thousands of households in Vermont and other states was to be 
terminated on October 8, 1998, for CBS and Fox distant network signals 
for households signed up after March 11, 1997, the date the action was 
filed.
  To avoid immediate cutoffs of satellite TV service in Vermont and 
other states, the parties requested an extension of the October 8, 
1998, termination date which was granted until February 28, 1999. This 
extension was also designed to give the FCC time to address these 
problems faced by satellite home dish owners.
  The FCC solicited comments on whether the current definition of grade 
B intensity was adequate.
  I was very concerned about the FCC proposal in this matter and filed 
a comment asking the FCC to come up with a realistic and workable 
system to protect satellite dish owners. I criticized the FCC rule in 
that it would cut off households from receiving distant signals based 
on ``unwarranted assumptions'' in a manner inconsistent with the law 
and the clear intent of the Congress. I complained about entire towns 
in Vermont which were to be inappropriately cut off and insisted that 
FCC issue a final rule that permits ``a smooth transition to `local-
into-local' satellite TV service.''
  I said in my comment to their proposal that: ``The Commission's 
proposal raises a number of complex issues, yet the guiding principle 
that the FCC should follow is simple: No customer's `distant' satellite 
TV signals should be cut off if the customer is unable to receive local 
TV broadcasts over-the-air.''
  I also pointed out that: ``The clear purpose of the law was, and is, 
to protect those living in more rural areas so that they can receive TV 
signals using satellite dishes when they are unable to receive a strong 
signal using an antenna. Your final rule should reflect that purpose. I 
have heard from constituents in two Vermont towns where I am told that 
almost no one can receive a clear TV signal, yet all families with 
satellite dishes were being targeted for termination of their satellite 
TV channels.''
  I also noted in my comment: ``A second area that concerns me relates 
to who should bear the cost of any testing that is done. I have heard 
from Vermonters who are justifiably furious that they are being asked 
to pay for these costs. The burden of proof and the burden of any 
additional expenses should not be assessed upon the families owning the 
satellite dishes.''

[[Page 1023]]

  ``While the hills and mountains of Vermont are a natural wonder, they 
are barriers to receiving clear TV signals over-the-air with roof top 
antennas. For example, at my home in Middlesex, Vermont, we can only 
get one channel clearly and the other channel with lots of ghosts.''
  In yet another development, the Florida district court filed a final 
order which will also require that households signed up for satellite 
service before March 11, 1997, be subject to termination of CBS and Fox 
distant signals on April 30, 1999, if they live in areas where they are 
likely to receive a grade B intensity signal, as defined by the Court 
and FCC rules, and are unable to get the local CBS or Fox affiliate to 
consent to receipt of the distant signal. My understanding is that each 
subscriber that is to lose service must receive notice 45 days in 
advance.
  I want to make clear, as I did in my comment to the FCC, that I 
strongly believe in the local affiliate television system. Local 
broadcast stations provide the public with local news, local weather, 
local informational programming, local emergency advisories, candidate 
forums, local public affairs programming, and high quality programs. 
Local broadcast stations contribute to our sense of community.
  I strongly believe that when the full local-into-local satellite 
system is in place, this system will enhance the local affiliate 
television system.
  I, thus, urge my colleagues to cosponsor this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Sessions, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 248. A bill to modify the procedures of the Federal courts in 
certain matters, to reform prisoner litigation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  the judicial improvement act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Ashcroft, Thurmond, Kyl, and Sessions, the ``Judicial 
Improvement Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to preserve the 
democratic process by strengthening the constitutional division of 
powers between the Federal Government and the States and between 
Congress and the Courts. I introduced this legislation last session, 
but, to my regret, the Senate did not have an opportunity to act upon 
it. I am re-introducing it because the same ills that were plaguing our 
judicial system continue to exist, and I believe this legislation can 
remedy these ills. I have every expectation that this legislation will 
be acted upon and favorably passed this session.
  I have always given credit where credit is due. So let me state that 
on the whole, our federal judges respect their constitutional roles and 
the Senate is aware of these judges' dedication to administering their 
oaths of office. Yet, unfortunately, this dedication is not universal 
and a degree of overreaching by some judges dictates that Congress move 
to more clearly delineate the proper role of federal judges. In our 
constitutional system, judges can not conveniently forget or blatantly 
ignore that the Constitution has exclusively reserved to Congress the 
power to legislate and limited their power to the interpretation of the 
law.
  This careful, but deliberate, separation of legislative and judicial 
functions is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Regardless of 
the temptation to embrace a certain judge's decision that some may find 
socially or politically expedient, we must remember that no interest is 
more compelling than preserving our Constitution.
  Now, attempts by certain federal judges to infringe upon Congress's 
legislative authority deeply concern me. I have taken the floor in this 
chamber on numerous occasions to recite some of the more troubling 
examples of judicial overreaching. I will not revisit them today. 
Suffice it to say that activism, and by that I mean a judge who ignores 
the written text of the law, whether from the right or the left, 
threatens our constitutional structure.
  As an elected official, my votes for legislation are subject to voter 
approval. Federal judges, however, are unelected, hence they are, as a 
practical matter, unaccountable to the public. While tenure during good 
behavior, which amounts to life tenure, is important in that it frees 
judges to make unpopular but constitutionally sound decisions, it can 
become a threat to liberty when placed in the wrong hands. And 
substituting the will of life-tenured federal judges for the 
democratically elected representatives is not what our Constitution's 
framers had in mind.
  In an effort to avoid this long-contemplated problem, the proposed 
reform legislation we are introducing today will assist in ensuring 
that all three branches of the Federal Government work together in a 
fashion contemplated by, and consistent with, the Constitution. In 
addition, this legislation will ensure that federal judges are more 
respectful of the States and their respective sovereignty.
  I want to be clear in stating that this bill does not, as some may 
claim, challenge the independence of federal judges. However, there are 
currently some activist federal judges improperly expanding their roles 
in an effort to substitute their own ideas and interests for the will 
of the people. Judges, however, are simply not entitled to deviate from 
their roles as interpreters of the law in order to create new law from 
the bench. If they believe otherwise, they are derelict in their duties 
and should leave the federal bench to run for public office--at least 
then they would be accountable for their actions. It is time that we 
pass legislation that precludes any federal judge from blurring the 
lines separating the legislative and judicial functions.
  It is important to note that the effort to reign in judicial activism 
should not be limited simply to opposing potential activist nominees. 
While the careful scrutiny of judicial nominees is one important step 
in the confirmation process, a step reserved to the Senate alone, 
Congress itself has an obligation to the public to ensure that judges 
fulfill their constitutionally prescribed roles and do not encroach 
upon those powers delegated to the legislature. Hence, the Congress 
performs an important role in bringing activist decisions to light and, 
where appropriate, publicly criticizing those decisions. Some view this 
as an assault upon judicial independence. That is untrue. It is merely 
a means of engaging in debate about a decision's merits or the process 
by which the decision was reached. Such criticism is a healthy part of 
our democratic system. While life tenure insulates judges from the 
political process, it should not, and must not, isolate them from the 
people.
  In addition, the Constitution grants Congress the authority, with a 
few notable limitations, to set federal courts' jurisdiction. This is 
an important tool that, while seldom used, sets forth the circumstances 
in which the judicial power may be exercised. A good example of this is 
the 104th Congress' effort to reform the statutory writ of habeas 
corpus in an attempt to curb the seemingly endless series of petitions 
filed by convicted criminals bent on thwarting the demands of justice. 
Legislation of this nature is an important means of curbing activism.
  In an effort to accomplish these goals, I have chosen to re-
introduce, along with my colleagues, the Judicial Improvement Act. It 
is a small, albeit meaningful, step in the right direction. Notably, 
this legislation will change the way federal courts review 
constitutional challenges to state and federal laws. The existing 
process allows a single federal judge to hear and grant applications 
regarding the constitutionality of state and federal laws as well as 
state ballot initiatives. In other words, a single federal judge can 
impede the will of a majority of the voters merely by issuing an order 
halting the implementation of a state referendum.
  This proposed reform will accomplish the twin goals of fighting 
judicial activism and preserving the democratic process. In essence, 
this bill modestly proposes to respond to the problem of judicial 
activism in part by: (1) Requiring a three judge district court panel 
to hear appeals and grant interlocutory or permanent injunctions based 
on the constitutionality of a state law or referendum; (2) placing time 
limitations

[[Page 1024]]

on remedial authority in any civil action in which prospective relief 
or a consent judgment binds State or local officials; (3) prohibiting a 
federal court from having the authority to order state or local 
governments to increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy; (4) 
preventing a federal court from prohibiting state or local officials 
from reprosecuting a defendant; and (5) preventing a federal court from 
ordering the release of violent offenders under unwarranted 
circumstances.
  As I said last session and still believe to be true, this reform bill 
is a long overdue effort to minimize the potential for judicial 
activism in the federal court system. Americans are understandably 
frustrated when they exercise their right to vote and the will of their 
elected representatives is frustrated by judges who enjoy life tenure. 
It is no wonder that millions of Americans do not think their vote 
matters when they enact a referendum only to have it enjoined by a 
single district court judge. By improving the way federal courts 
analyze constitutional challenges to laws and initiatives, Congress 
will protect the rights of parties to challenge unconstitutional laws 
while at the same time reduce the ability of activist judges to abuse 
their power and circumvent the will of the people.
  I want to take a few moments to again describe how this legislation 
will curb the ability of federal judges to engage in judicial activism. 
The first reform would require a three judge panel to hear and issue 
interlocutory and permanent injunctions regarding challenged laws at 
the district court level. The current system allows a single federal 
judge to restrain the enforcement, operation and execution of 
challenged federal or state laws, including initiatives. There have 
been many instances where an activist judge has used this power to 
overturn a ballot initiative only to have his or her order overturned 
by a higher court years later.
  One need only remember how Proposition 209, a ballot initiative 
passed by the voters which prohibited affirmative action in California, 
was held in abeyance after a district court judge issued an injunction 
barring its enforcement to understand how the three judge panel 
provision may in fact play a role in ensuring that the will of the 
people is not wrongfully thwarted. The injunction was subsequently 
overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the 
law was constitutional. A three judge panel perhaps may have ruled 
correctly initially, allowing the democratic process to work properly 
while also saving taxpayer dollars.
  Obviously, I have no problem with a court declaring a law 
unconstitutional when it violates the written text of the Constitution. 
It is, however, inappropriate when a judge attempts to act like a 
legislator and imposes his own policy preference on the citizens of a 
state. Such an action weakens respect for the federal judiciary, 
creates cynicism in the voting public, and costs governments millions 
of dollars in legal fees. By requiring a ruling by a three judge panel 
to overturn the validity of a State law, the proposed law would 
eliminate the ability of one activist judge to unilaterally bar 
enforcement of a law or ballot initiative through an interlocutory or 
permanent injunction.
  In addition, new time limits on injunctive relief would be imposed. A 
temporary restraining order would remain in force no more than 10 days, 
and an interlocutory injunction no more than 60 days. After the 
expiration of an interlocutory injunction, federal courts would lack 
the authority to grant any additional interlocutory relief but would 
still have the power to issue a permanent injunction. These limitations 
are designed to prevent the federal judiciary from indefinitely barring 
implementation of challenged laws by issuing endless injunctions, and 
facilitate the appeals process by motivating courts to speedily handle 
constitutional challenges. What this reform essentially does is 
encourage the federal judiciary to rule on the merits of a case, and 
not use injunctions to keep a challenged law from going into effect or 
being heard by an appeals court through the use of delaying tactics.
  The bill also proposes to require that a notice of appeal must be 
filed not more than fourteen days after the date of an order granting 
an interlocutory injunction and the appeals court would lack 
jurisdiction over an untimely appeal of such an order. The court of 
appeals would apply a de novo standard of review before reconsidering 
the merits of granting relief, but not less than 100 days after the 
issuance of the original order granting interlocutory relief. If the 
interlocutory order is upheld on appeal, the order would remain in 
force no longer than 60 days after the date of the appellate decision 
or until replaced by a permanent injunction.
  The bill also proposes limitations on the remedial authority of 
federal courts. In any civil action where prospective relief or a 
consent judgment binds state and local officials, relief would be 
terminated upon the motion of any party or intervener: (a) Five years 
after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief; 
(b) two years after the date the court has entered an order denying 
termination of prospective relief; or (c) in the case of an order 
issued on or before the date of enactment of this act, two years after 
the date of enactment.
  Parties could agree to terminate or modify an injunction before 
relief is available if it otherwise would be legally permissible. 
Courts would promptly rule on motions to modify or terminate this 
relief and in the event that a motion is not ruled on within 60 days, 
the order or consent judgment binding state and local officials would 
automatically terminate.
  However, prospective relief would not terminate if the federal court 
makes written findings based on the record that relief remains 
necessary to correct an ongoing violation of a federal right, extends 
no further than necessary to correct the violation and is the least 
intrusive means available to correct the violation of a federal right.
  Moreover, this measure would also prohibit a federal court from 
having the authority to order a unit of state or local government to 
increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy. When an unelected federal 
judge has the power to order tax increases, this results in taxation 
without representation. Americans have fought against unfair taxation 
since the Revolutionary War, and this bill would prevent unfair 
judicial taxation and leave the power to tax to elected representatives 
of the people.
  The bill would not limit the authority of a federal court to order a 
remedy which may lead a unit of local or state government to decide to 
increase taxes. A federal court would still have the power to issue a 
money judgment against a State because the court would not be 
attempting to restructure local government entities or mandating a 
particular method or structure of State or local financing. This bill 
also doesn't limit the remedial authority of State courts in any case, 
including cases raising issues of federal law. All the bill does is 
prevent federal courts from having the power to order elected 
representatives to raise taxes. This is moderate reform which prevents 
judicial activism and unfair taxation while preserving the federal 
courts power to order remedial measures.
  Another important provision of the bill would prevent a federal court 
from prohibiting State or local officials from re-prosecuting a 
defendant. This legislation is designed to clarify that federal habeas 
courts lack the authority to bar retrial as a remedy.
  This part of the legislation was co-sponsored by Congressman Pitts 
and Senator Specter in response to a highly-publicized murder case in 
the Congressman's district. Sixteen year old Laurie Show was harrassed, 
stalked and assaulted for six months by the defendant, who had a 
vendetta against Show for briefly dating the defendant's boyfriend. 
After luring Show's mother from their residence, the defendant and an 
accomplice forcefully entered the Show home, held the victim down, and 
slit her throat with a butcher knife, killing her. After the defendant 
was convicted in state court, she filed a habeas petition in which she 
alleged prosecutorial misconduct and averred her

[[Page 1025]]

actual innocence. A federal district court judge not only accepted this 
argument and released the defendant, but he also took the extraordinary 
step of barring state and local officials from reprosecuting the woman. 
This judge even went so far as to state that the defendant was the 
``first and foremost victim of this affair.''
  Congress has long supported the ability of a federal court to fashion 
creative remedies to preserve constitutional protections, but the 
additional step of barring state or local officials from reprosecution 
is without precedent and an unacceptable intrusion on the rights of 
States. This bill, if enacted, will prevent this type of judicial 
activism from ever occurring again.
  This bill also contains provisions for the termination of prospective 
relief when it is no longer warranted to cure a violation of a federal 
right. Once a violation that was the subject of a consent decree has 
been corrected, a consent decree must be terminated unless the court 
finds that an ongoing violation of a federal right exists, the specific 
relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right, and no 
other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right. The party 
opposing the termination of relief has the burden of demonstrating why 
the relief should not be terminated, and the court is required to grant 
the motion to terminate if the opposing party fails to meet its burden. 
These provisions prevent consent decrees from remaining in effect once 
a proper remedy has been implemented, thereby preventing judges from 
imposing consent decrees that go beyond the requirements of law.
  The proposed reform law also includes provisions designed to dissuade 
prisoners from filing frivolous and malicious motions by requiring that 
the complainant prisoner pay for the costs of the filings. These 
provisions will undoubtedly curb the number of frivolous motions filed 
by prisoners and thus, relieve the courts of the obligation to hear 
these vacuous motions designed to mock and frustrate the judicial 
system.
  Finally, the bill proposes to prevent federal judges from entering or 
carrying out any prisoner release order that would result in the 
release from or nonadmission to a prison on the basis of prison 
conditions. This provision effectively will preclude activist judges 
from circumventing mandatory minimum sentencing laws by stripping 
federal judges of jurisdiction to enter such orders. This will ensure 
that the tough sentencing laws approved by voters to keep murderers, 
rapists, and drug dealers behind bars for lengthy terms will not be 
ignored by activist judges who improperly use complaints of prison 
conditions filed by convicts as a vehicle to release violent offenders 
back on to our streets. It will also prevent any federal judge from 
ever endangering families and children in our communities by preventing 
these judges from releasing prisoners based on prison conditions.
  Congress repeatedly has tried to ensure that convicted prisoners stay 
where they belong: in prison for the term to which they were sentenced. 
This effort has been ongoing for over 10 years. Consider the following 
examples: (1) In 1987, Congress passed the Sentencing Guidelines which 
effectively limited the probation of prisoners; (2) the 1994 Crime Bill 
contained incentives for States to pass Truth in Sentencing Laws which 
kept convicted prisoners incarcerated for longer periods; and (3) the 
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996 allowed for the revocation of 
good time credit if prisoners filed malicious, repetitive and frivolous 
law suits while in prison. The reform bill being introduced today will 
further Congress' ongoing efforts to provide safer streets for all 
Americans by ensuring that convicted prisoners who pose a danger to our 
communities are not released prior to the expiration of their mandated 
sentences.
  This timely legislation is a measured effort to improve the way the 
federal judiciary works. It is not an attempt to infringe upon judicial 
independence. To the contrary, this reform bill is a sensible, balanced 
attempt to promote judicial efficiency and to prevent egregious 
judicial activism. I encourage all of my colleagues to act swiftly on 
and support this truly needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 249. A bill to provide funding for the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


      the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act

  Mr. HATCH, Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Missing, 
Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 1999. This bill 
reauthorizes two vital laws that serve a crucial line of defense in 
support of some of the most vulnerable members of our society--
thousands of missing, exploited, homeless, or runaway children. It is a 
tragedy in our Nation that each year there are as many as over 114,000 
attempted child abductions, 4,500 child abductions reported to the 
police, 450,000 children who run away, and 438,000 children who are 
lost, injured, or missing. I am told that this is a growing problem 
even in my State of Utah.
  Families who have written to me have shared the pain of a lost or 
missing child. While missing, lost, on the run, or abducted, each of 
these children is at high risk of falling into the darkness of drug 
abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, pain, hunger, and injury. Each of 
these children is precious, and deserves our efforts to save them. The 
bill I am introducing today is a step in that direction.
  My bill reauthorizes and improves the Missing Children's Assistance 
Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. First,this bill revises the 
Missing Children's Assistance Act in part by recognizing the 
outstanding record of achievements of this National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children. It will enable NCMEC to provide even greater 
protection of our Nation's children in the future. Second, this bill 
reauthorizes and revitalizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
  At the heart of the bill's amendments to the Missing Children's 
Assistance Act is an enhanced authorization of appropriations for the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Under the authority 
of the Missing children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has selected and given 
grants to the Center for the last fourteen years to operate a national 
resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour 
toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and 
training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and 
exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its 
efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage 
of missing children who are recovered safely.
  In fiscal year 1999, the Center received an earmark of $8.12 million 
in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations 
conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center 
received $1.25 million.
  The legislation I am introducing today continues and formalizes 
NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP, by 
directing OJJDP to make an annual grant to the Center, and authorizing 
annual appropriations of $10 million for fiscal years 1999 through 
2004.
  NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated 
by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, 
justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's 
official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a 
line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus 
completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to 
obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center 
to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law 
enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will 
allow for better congressional oversight of the Center.

[[Page 1026]]

  The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the 
appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years the Center 
has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated 
by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in 
partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and 
many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing 
children and prevent child victimization.
  The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non-
profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's 
National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications System (NLETS).
  NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the 
National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet 
website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other 
websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing 
children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on 
child exploitation.
  NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, 
linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses 
operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In 
addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement 
authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France and 
others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information 
regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around 
the world instantly. NCMEC also serve as the U.S. State Department's 
representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention.
  The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received 
at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law 
enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals 
trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most 
importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has 
resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. Each of these figures 
represents the activity of NCMEC through spring 1998. NCMEC is a 
shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress 
should encourage and recognize.
  The second part of the bill I am introducing today reforms and 
streamlines the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, targeting federal 
assistance to areas with the greatest need, and making numerous 
technical changes. According to the National Network for Youth, the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides ``critical assistance to youth 
in high-risk situations all over the country.'' Its three programs, 
discussed in more detail below, benefit those children truly in need 
and at high risk of becoming addicted to drugs, sexually exploited or 
abused, or involved in criminal behavior.
  The cornerstone of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the Basic 
Center Program which provides grants for temporary shelter and 
counseling for children under age 18. My home state of Utah received 
over $378,000 in grants in FY 1998 under this program, and I have 
received requests from Utah organizations such as the Baker Youth 
Service Home to reauthorize this important program.
  Community-based organizations also may request grants under the two 
related programs, the Transitional Living and the Sexual Abuse 
Prevention/Street Outreach programs. The Transitional Living grants 
provide longer term housing to homeless teens aged 16 to 21, and aim to 
move these teens to self-sufficiency and to avoid long-term dependency 
on public assistance. The Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach 
Program targets homeless teens potentially involved in high risk 
behaviors.
  In addition, the amendment reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless 
Youth Act Rural Demonstration Projects which provide assistance to 
rural juvenile populations, such as in my state of Utah. Finally, the 
amendment makes several technical corrections to fix prior drafting 
errors in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
  The provisions of this bill will strengthen our commitment to our 
youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will 
strengthen the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, and thus improve the safety of our Nation's children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 250. A bill to establish ethical standards for Federal 
prosecutors, and for other purposes.


                     federal prosecutor ethics act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce an 
important piece of corrective legislation--the Federal Prosecutor 
Ethics Act. This bill will address in a responsible manner the critical 
issue of ethical standards for federal prosecutors, while ensuring that 
the public servants are permitted to perform their important function 
of upholding federal law.
  The bill I am introducing today is a careful solution to a troubling 
problem--the application of state ethics rules in federal court, and 
particularly to federal prosecutors. In short, my bill will subject 
federal prosecutors to the bar rules of each state in which they are 
licensed unless such rules are inconsistent with federal law or the 
effectuation of federal policy or investigations. It also sets specific 
standards for federal prosecutorial conduct, to be enforced by the 
Attorney General. Finally, it establishes a commission of federal 
judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, to review and report on the 
interrelationship between the duties of federal prosecutors and 
regulation of their conduct by state bars and the disciplinary 
procedures utilized by the Attorney General.
  No one condones prosecutorial excesses. There have been instances 
where law enforcement, and even some federal prosecutors, have gone 
overboard. Unethical conduct by any attorney is a matter for concern. 
But when engaged in by a federal prosecutor, unethical conduct cannot 
be tolerated. For as Justice Sutherland noted in 1935, the prosecutor 
is not just to win a case, ``but that justice shall be done. . . . It 
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to 
produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to 
bring about a just one.''
  We must, however, ensure that the rules we adopt to ensure proper 
prosecutorial conduct are measured and well-tailored to that purpose. 
As my colleagues may recall, last year's omnibus appropriations act 
included a very controversial provision known to most of my colleagues 
simply as the ``McDade provision,'' after its House sponsor, former 
Representative Joe McDade.
  This well-intentioned but ill-advised provision was adopted to set 
ethical standards for federal prosecutors and other attorneys for the 
government. In my view, it was not the measured and well-tailored law 
needed to address the legitimate concerns its sponsors sought to 
redress. Nor was I alone in this view. So great was the concern over 
its impact, in fact, that its effective date was delayed until six 
months after enactment. That deadline is approaching. In my view, if 
allowed to take effect in its present form, the McDade provision would 
cripple the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce federal law 
and cede authority to regulate the conduct of federal criminal 
investigations and prosecutions to more than 50 state bar associations.
  As enacted last fall, the McDade provision adds a new section 530B to 
title 28 of the U.S. Code. In its most relevant part, it states that an 
``attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules 
. . . governing attorneys in each state where such attorney engages in 
that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as 
other attorneys in that state.''
  There are important practical considerations which persuasively 
counsel

[[Page 1027]]

against allowing 28 U.S.C. 530B to take effect unchanged. I have been a 
frequent critic of the trend toward the over-federalization of crime. 
Yet the federal government has a most legitimate role in the 
investigation and prosecution of complex multistate terrorism, drug, 
fraud or organized crime conspiracies, in rooting out and punishing 
fraud against federally funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security, in vindicating the federal civil rights laws, in 
investigating and prosecuting complex corporate crime, and in punishing 
environmental crime.
  It is in these very cases that Section 530B will have its most 
pernicious effect. Federal attorneys investigating and prosecuting 
these cases, which frequently encompass three, four, or five states, 
will be subject to the differing state and local rules of each of those 
states, plus the District of Columbia, if they are based here. Their 
decisions will be subject to review by the bar and ethics review boards 
in each of these states at the whim of defense counsel, even if the 
federal attorney is not licensed in that state.
  Practices concerning contact with unrepresented persons or the 
conduct of matters before a grand jury, perfectly legal and acceptable 
in federal court, will be subject to state bar rules. For instance, in 
many states, federal attorneys will not be permitted to speak with 
represented witnesses, especially witnesses to corporate misconduct, 
and the use of undercover investigations will at a minimum be hindered. 
In other states, section 530B might require--contrary to long-
established federal grand jury practice--that prosecutors present 
exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Moreover, these rules won't 
have to be in effect in the district where the subject is being 
investigated, or where the grand jury is sitting to have these effects. 
No, these rules only have to be in effect somewhere the investigation 
leads, or the federal attorney works, to handcuff federal law 
enforcement.
  In short, Section 530B will affect every attorney in every department 
and agency of the federal government. It will affect enforcement of our 
antitrust laws, our environmental laws prohibiting the dumping of 
hazardous waste, our labor laws, our civil rights laws, and as I said 
before, the integrity of every federal funding program.
  Section 530B is also an open invitation to clever defense attorneys 
to stymie federal criminal or civil investigations by raising bogus 
defenses or bringing frivolous state bar claims. Indeed, this is 
happening even without Section 530B as the law of the land. The most 
recent example is the use of a State rule against testimony buying to 
brand as ``unethical'' the long accepted, and essential, federal 
practice of moving for sentence reductions for co-conspirators who 
cooperate with prosecutors by testifying truthfully for the government. 
How much worse will it be when this provision declares it open season 
on federal lawyers?
  What will the costs of this provision be? At a minimum, the 
inevitable result will be that violations of federal laws will not be 
punished, and justice will not be done. But there will be financial 
costs to the federal government as well, as a result of defending these 
frivolous challenges and from higher costs associated with 
investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law.
  All of this, however, is not to say that nothing needs to be done on 
the issue of attorney ethics in federal court. Indeed, I have 
considerable sympathy for the objectives values Section 530B seeks to 
protect. All of us who at one time or another have been the subject of 
unfounded ethical or legal charges, as I have been as well, know the 
frustration of clearing one's name. And no one wants more than I to 
ensure that all federal prosecutors are held to the highest ethical 
standards. But Section 530B, as it was enacted last year, is not in my 
view the way to do it.
  The bill I am introducing today addresses the narrow matter of 
federal prosecutorial conduct in a responsible way, and I might add, in 
a manner that is respectful of both federal and state sovereignty. As 
all of my colleagues know, each of our states has at least one federal 
judicial district. But the federal courts that sit in these districts 
are not courts of the state. They are, of course instrumentalities of 
federal sovereignty, created by Congress pursuant to its power under 
Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the 
United States in ``one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the 
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''
  As enacted, Section 530B is in my view a serious dereliction of our 
Constitutional duty to establish inferior federal courts. Should this 
provision take effect, Congress will have ceded the right to control 
conduct in the federal courts to more than fifty state bar 
associations, at a devastating cost to federal sovereignty and the 
independence of the federal judiciary. Simply put, the federal 
government, like each of our states, must retain for itself the 
authority to regulate the practice of law in its own courts and by its 
own lawyers. Indeed, the principle of federal sovereignty in its own 
sphere has been well established since Chief Justice Marshall's opinion 
in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 1819].
  However, it may only be a first step. For the problem of rules for 
the conduct of attorneys in federal court affects more than just 
prosecutors. It affects all litigants in each of our federal courts, 
who have a right to know what the rules are in the administration of 
justice. This is a problem that has been percolating in the federal bar 
for over a decade--the diversity of ethical rules governing attorney 
conduct in federal court.
  Presently, there is no uniform rule that applies in all federal 
courts. Rather, applicable ethics rules have been left up to the 
discretion of local rules in each federal judicial district. Various 
districts have taken different approaches, including adopting state 
standards based on either the ABA Model Rules or the ABA Code, adopting 
one of the ABA models directly, and in some cases, adopting both an ABA 
model and the state rules.
  This variety of rules has led to confusion, especially in multiforum 
federal practice. As a 1997 report prepared for the Judicial 
Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure put it, 
``Multiforum federal practice, challenging under ideal conditions, has 
been made increasingly complex, wasteful, and problematic by the 
disarray among federal local rules and state ethical standards.''
  Moreover, the problem may well be made worse if Section 530B takes 
effect in its present form. First, as enacted, Section 530B contains an 
internal conflict that will add to the confusion. Section 530B provides 
that federal attorneys are governed by both the state laws and bar 
rules and the federal court's local rules. These, of course, are 
frequently different, setting up the obvious quandary--which take 
precedence? Finally, Section 530B might further add to the confusion, 
by raising the possibility of different standards in the same court for 
opposing litigants--private parties governed by the federal local rules 
and prosecutors governed by Section 530B.
  The U.S. Judicial Conference's Rules Committee has been studying this 
matter, and is considering whether to issue ethics rules pursuant to 
its authority under the federal Rules Enabling Act. I believe that this 
is an appropriate debate to have, and that it may be time for the 
federal bar to mature. The days are past when federal practice was a 
small side line of an attorney's practice. Practice in federal court is 
now ubiquitous to any attorney's practice of law. It is important, 
then, that there be consistent rules. Indeed, for that very reason, we 
have federal rules of evidence, criminal procedure, and civil 
procedure. Perhaps it is time to consider the development of federal 
rules of ethics, as well.
  This is not to suggest, of course, a challenge to the traditional 
state regulation of the practice of law, or the proper control by state 
Supreme Courts of the conduct of attorneys in state court. The 
assertion of federal sovereignty over the conduct of attorneys in 
federal courts will neither impugn nor diminish the sovereign right

[[Page 1028]]

of states to continue to do the same in state courts. However, the 
administration of justice in the federal courts requires the 
consideration of uniform rules to apply in federal courts and thus, I 
will be evaluating proposals to set uniform rules governing the conduct 
of attorneys in federal court.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is of vital 
importance to the continued enforcement of federal law. Its importance 
is compounded by the deadline imposed by the effective date of Section 
530B. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and support the 
Federal Prosecutor Ethics Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the voluntary 
school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to S.J. 
Res. 73, which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of then 
President Reagan and have reintroduced every Congress since.
  This proposal has received strong support from both sides of the 
aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the 
right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely 
exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme 
Court ruled to the contrary.
  Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute 
unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide 
``a period of silence * * * for meditation or voluntary prayer'' at the 
beginning of each school day. As I stated when that opinion was issued 
and repeat again: the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the 
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and, in doing so, has 
incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their 
parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other 
purposes.
  Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School 
District decisions, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was 
generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially 
approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith 
or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought 
to prevent what had originally caused many colonial Americans to 
emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same 
time, they sought, through the Free Exercise Clause, to guarantee to 
all Americans the freedom to worship God without government 
interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true 
religious liberty precludes the government from both forcing and 
preventing worship.
  As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a 
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' 
Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of 
public prayer. Moreover, we, as a Nation, continue to recognize the 
Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation 
``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We 
Trust''. In this Body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with 
the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers. I would note that 
this practice has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
  It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial 
experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools. 
This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the 
framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights 
of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions. 
It should be changed, without further delay.
  The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the 
States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would 
clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public 
school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no 
person may be required to participate in any prayer. The government 
would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted 
amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and 
approval of this legislation during this Congress.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 1

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States, which shall be valid to all intents and 
     purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission to the States by 
     the Congress:

                              ``Article --

       ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to 
     prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or 
     other public institutions. No person shall be required by the 
     United States or by any State to participate in prayer. 
     Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the 
     words of any prayer to be said in public schools.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gramm, 
        Mr. Grams, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of 
        New Hampshire, and Mr. Thompson):
  S.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require two-thirds majorities for 
increasing taxes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators 
Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Brownback, Coverdell, Crapo, Frist, Gramm, 
Grams, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Inhofe, Mack, McConnell, Sessions, 
Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thompson, to introduce the Tax 
Limitation Amendment, a joint resolution that proposes to amend the 
Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to 
raise taxes.
  Mr. President, this is an idea that comes to us from the states. 
Voters from around the country have approved similar restrictions in 
recent years--doing so in most cases by overwhelming margins. Most 
recently, a solid majority of Montana voters approved an amendment to 
their state's constitution that requires voter approval of all new 
taxes and tax increases. That is a far stronger constraint than what is 
being proposed here.
  By overwhelming majorities, voters in Arkansas, Maryland, and 
Virginia upheld their states tax-limitation initiatives, rejecting 
ballot propositions on November 3 last year that were designed to water 
down existing constraints on tax increases.
  Two years ago, also by overwhelming majorities, voters from Florida 
to California approved initiatives aimed at limiting government's 
ability to raise taxes. Florida's Question One, which requires a two-
thirds vote of the people to enact or raise any state taxes or fees, 
passed with 69.2 percent of the vote.
  Seventy percent of Nevada voters approved the Gibbons amendment, 
requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the state legislature to pass 
new taxes or tax hikes. South Dakotans easily approved an amendment 
requiring either a vote of the people or a two-thirds vote of the 
legislature for any state tax increase.
  And California voters tightened the restrictions in the most famous 
tax limitation of all, Proposition 13, so that all taxes at the local 
level now have to be approved by a vote of the people. Of course, 
voters in my home state of Arizona overwhelmingly approved a state tax 
limit of their own in 1992.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment I am introducing today would impose 
similar constraints on federal tax-raising authority. It would require 
a two-

[[Page 1029]]

thirds majority vote of each house of Congress to pass any bill levying 
a new tax or increasing the rate or base of any existing tax. In short, 
any measure that would take more out of the taxpayers' pockets would 
require a supermajority vote to pass.
  I would note that the proposed amendment includes provisions that 
would allow Congress to waive the supermajority vote requirement in 
times of war, or when the United States is engaged in military conflict 
which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security. But 
to ensure that such waiver authority is truly reserved for such 
emergencies and is not abused, any new taxes imposed under a waiver 
could only remain in effect for a maximum of two years.
  Mr. President, why is a tax-limitation amendment necessary?
  The two largest tax increases in our nation's history were enacted 
earlier this decade by only the slimmest of margins. In fact, President 
Clinton's 1993 tax increase did not even win the support of a majority 
of Senators. Vice President Gore broke a 50 to 50 vote tie to secure 
its passage.
  Despite very modest efforts to cut taxes in the last few years, the 
effects of the record-setting tax increases of 1990 and 1993 are still 
being felt today. The tax burden imposed on the American people hit a 
peacetime high of 19.8 percent of GDP in 1997 and, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in 
1998 and 20.6 in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, 
and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire 
history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. 
Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the 
economy tipped into recession.
  Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth 
in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 
1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. In fact, growth during 
the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent 
annually. That compares to the 3.9 percent annual growth rate during 
the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. 
The heavy tax burden may not be the only reason for slow growth, but it 
is a significant factor.
  With that in mind, I believe the President and Congress should 
consider reducing income-tax rates across the board for all Americans. 
We will no doubt have that debate about the need for tax relief in 
coming months. But whether we agree to cut taxes or not, we--the 
President and Congress--should be able to agree that taxes are high 
enough and should not be raised further, at least not without the kind 
of significant, broad-based and bipartisan support that would be 
required under the Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential 
operation is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax 
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent 
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax 
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the 
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's 
unified budget deficit.
  In any event, voters around the country seem to believe that raising 
taxes should only be done when there is broad support for the 
proposition. The TLA will ensure that no tax can be raised in the 
future without such consensus.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the initiative, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 2

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the 
     rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds 
     majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.
       ``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a 
     declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive 
     section 1 when the United States is engaged in military 
     conflict when it causes an imminent and serious threat to 
     national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, 
     adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, 
     which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing 
     alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which 
     becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for 
     not longer than 2 years.
       ``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be 
     determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting 
     for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House 
     respectively.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Mack, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Helms, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. Gramm, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states to 
                  protect the rights of crime victims

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with 
fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise to introduce, along with Senator 
Feinstein, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to 
establish and protect the rights of victims of violent crime. I would 
like to update the members on the latest form of the Crime Victims 
Rights Amendment and outline our plans for the 106th Congress.
  This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Senators Hatch and 
Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, law enforcement 
officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as 
Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell. As a result of these 
discussions, the core values in the original amendment remain 
unchanged, but the language has been refined to better protect the 
interest of all parties.
  Before I discuss the amendment in detail, I would like to thank 
Senator Feinstein for her efforts to advance the cause of crime 
victims' rights and for her very valuable work on the language of the 
amendment. She has been a tireless and invaluable advocate for the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. 
Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime 
many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, 
counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free 
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena 
witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due 
process under the law.
  The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For 
example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed 
of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, 
no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the 
victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays 
in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might 
be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of 
rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to 
suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands 
of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victim Rights 
Amendment is a constitutional amendment that would bring balance to the 
judicial system by giving crime victims the rights to be informed, 
present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal--the 
least the system owes to those it failed to protect.

[[Page 1030]]

  Mr. President, the current version, which is the 62d draft of the 
amendment, contains the rights that we believe victims should have.
  The amendment gives victims the rights:
  To be notified of the proceedings;
  To attend all public proceedings;
  To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process;
  To be notified of the offender's release or escape;
  To consideration for a trial free from unreasonable delay;
  To an order of restitution;
  To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release 
from custody; and
  To be notified of these rights and standing to enforce them.
  These rights are the core of the amendment.
  Mr. President, if reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. 
Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment 
was first recognized by a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime, 
32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of 
about 80 percent. These state measures have materially helped protect 
crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons: First, each 
amendment is different, and not all states have provided protection to 
victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime 
victims' rights for all Americans, just as the Federal Constitution 
provides for the accused. Second, statutory and State constitutional 
provisions are always subservient to the Federal Constitution; so, in 
cases of conflict, the defendants' rights--which are already in the 
U.S. Constitution--will always prevail. Our amendment will correct this 
imbalance.
  It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 
recent 400-page report by the Department of Justice on victims' rights 
and services that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to 
guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' The report 
continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only 
legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in 
victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction on the State and Federal levels.'' Further, ``Granting 
victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is 
exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to 
protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include 
the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the 
government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.''
  Until crime victims are protected by the United States Constitution, 
the rights of victims will be subordinate to the rights of the 
defendant. Indeed, the National Governors Association--by a vote of 49-
1--passed a resolution strongly supporting a constitutional amendment 
for crime victims. The resolution stated: ``Despite * * * widespread 
State initiatives, the rights of victims do not receive the same 
consideration or protection as the rights of the accused. These rights 
exist on different judicial levels. Victims are relegated to a position 
of secondary importance in the judicial process.'' The resolution also 
stated that ``The rights of victims have always received secondary 
consideration within the U.S. judicial process, even though States and 
the American people by a wide plurality consider victims' rights to be 
fundamental. Protection of these rights is essential and can only come 
from a fundamental change in our basic law: the U.S. Constitution.''
  Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be 
in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change. All 
we need to do is pass some good statutes to make sure that victims are 
treated fairly.'' But statutes have been inadequate to restore balance 
and fairness for victims. The history of our country teaches us that 
constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of 
the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental 
reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental 
law--the Constitution.
  Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless 
the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, we 
will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between 
defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of 
victims' rights.'' Attempts to establish rights by federal or state 
statute, or even state constitutional amendment, have proven 
inadequate, after more then twenty years of trying.
  On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, the Associate 
Attorney General, recently testified that ``the state legislative route 
to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their 
rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state 
provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the 
Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will 
provide a national baseline.''
  A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. In 
the 1997 Harvard Law Bulletin, Professor Laurence Tribe has explained 
that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as 
experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection 
whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional 
indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights 
regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' He has 
also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence 
showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules 
exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often 
tend to be honored in the breach. * * *''
  Additionally, in the Baylor Law Review, Texas Court of Appeals 
Justice Richard Barajas has explained that ``[i]t is apparent * * * 
that state constitutional amendments alone cannot adequately address 
the needs of crime victims.'' Federal statutes are also inadequate. 
Professor Cassell's detailed 1998 testimony about the Oklahoma City 
Bombing Case shows that, as he concluded, ``federal statutes are 
insufficient to protect the rights of crime victims.''
  Mr. President, I was pleased that in July 1998 the Senate Judiciary 
Committee passed the amendment, S.J. Res. 44, by a bipartisan vote of 
11 to 6. The amendment has strong bipartisan support. It was 
cosponsored by 30 Republicans and 12 Democrats, including leadership 
members such as Senators Lott, Thurmond, Mack, Coverdell, Craig, 
Breaux, Reid, Torricelli, and Ford (now retired).
  In the 106th Congress, Senator Feinstein and I will work hard to 
ensure the amendment's passage. We plan to hold a hearing early in the 
Congress, followed by a markup and consideration by the full Senate. We 
welcome comments and suggestions from Members and other interested 
parties.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her hard 
work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime 
victims. Mr. President, for far to long, the criminal justice system 
has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, 
dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly 
just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 3

       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
     thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following 
     article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and 
     purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                               Article--

       Section 1. A victim of a crime of violence, as these terms 
     may be defined by law, shall have the rights:
       to reasonable notice of, and not be excluded from, any 
     public proceedings relating to the crime;

[[Page 1031]]

       to be heard, if present, and to submit a statement at all 
     such proceedings to determine a conditional release from 
     custody, and an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a 
     sentence;
       to the foregoing rights at a parole proceeding that is not 
     public, to the extent those rights are afforded to the 
     convicted offender;
       to reasonable notice of a release or escape from custody 
     relating to the crime;
       to consideration of the interest of the victim that any 
     trial be free from unreasonable delay;
       to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
       to consideration for the safety of the victim in 
     determining any conditional release from custody relating to 
     the crime; and
       to reasonable notice of the rights established by this 
     article.
       Section 2. Only the victim or the victim's lawful 
     representative shall have standing to assert the rights 
     established by this article. Nothing in this article shall 
     provide grounds to stay or continue any trial, reopen any 
     proceeding or invalidate any ruling, except with respect to 
     conditional release or restitution or to provide rights 
     guaranteed by this article in future proceedings, without 
     staying or continuing a trial. Nothing in this article shall 
     give rise to or authorize the creation of a claim for damages 
     against the United States, a State, or political subdivision, 
     or a public officer or employee.
       Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce 
     this article by appropriate legislation. Exceptions to the 
     rights established by this article may be created only when 
     necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
       Section 4. This article shall take effect on the 180th day 
     after the ratification of this article. The right to an order 
     of restitution established by this article shall not apply to 
     crimes committed before the effective date of this article.
       Section 5. The rights and immunities established by this 
     article shall apply in Federal and State proceedings, 
     including military proceedings to the extent that the 
     Congress may provide by law, juvenile justice proceedings, 
     and proceedings in the District of Columbia and any 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Kyl, to once again introduce a constitutional amendment to 
provide rights for victims of violent crime.
  We have achieved significant progress in our effort to pass the 
amendment. After working extensively--indeed, exhaustively--with 
prosecutors, law professors, the Justice Department, the White House 
Counsel's Office, and leaders of victims groups from around the country 
to carefully craft and hone the amendment's language, we succeeded in 
bringing the amendment to markup in the Judiciary Committee.
  After numerous committee business meetings, and one of the most high-
minded debates in which I have been privileged to participate, the 
Judiciary Committee passed the amendment by a strong, bipartisan vote. 
Unfortunately, with the press of final business at the end of the 
Congress, there was not sufficient time to consider the amendment on 
the Senate floor and work it through the House.
  So here we are now, carrying the fight forward into this new, 106th 
Congress. We are fighting to ensure that the 8.6 million victims of 
violent crime in the country receive the fair treatment by the judicial 
system which they deserve. Too often in America victims of violent 
crime are victimized a second time, by the government.
  Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. What really 
focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims' 
rights was a particularly horrifying case in 1974, in San Francisco, 
when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson 
family in Portero Hill.
  Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a 
hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped 
Carlson's 24-year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her 
wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before 
fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly reteating into the 
night, leaving this family to burn up in flames.
  But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify 
against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and 
continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. 
When I was Mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to 
notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. 
Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were.
  Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice--
It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the 
responsibility of the state to send a letter through the mail or make a 
phone call to let the victim know that her attacker is up for parole, 
and she should have the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
  But today, in many states in this great nation, victims still are not 
made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the 
courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when a convicted 
offender is released from prison.
  I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to 
our nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted 
the Crime Victim's Rights Amendment before us today.
  The people of California were the first in the nation to pass a crime 
victims' amendment to the state constitution in 1982--the imitative 
Proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims 
the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation 
and parole hearings, established a right to safe and secure public 
school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's 
Proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights.
  Since the passage of Proposition Eight, 31 more states have passed 
constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims. 
Just this past November, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee added 
victims' rights amendments to their state constitutions. These 
amendments were overwhelmingly supported by the voters, winning with 
93%, 71% and 89% of the vote, respectively.
  But citizens in other states lack these basic rights. The 32 
different state constitutional amendments differ from each other, 
representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from state to state. 
And even in those states which have state amendments, criminals can 
assert rights grounded in the federal constitution to try to trump 
those rights.
  The United States Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the 
accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to 
the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this nation must attempt 
to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions 
victimized by crime each year.
  For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution 
specifically protects:
  The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes;
  The prohibition against double jeopardy;
  The right to due process;
  The right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of 
one's peers;
  The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal 
accusation;
  The right to confront witnesses;
  The right to counsel;
  The right to subpoena witnesses--and so on.
  However, nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there 
appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims.
  To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I are putting forth this 
Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. This provides for certain rights for 
victims of crime:
  The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case;
  The right not be excluded from these proceedings;
  The right to be heard at proceedings to determine a release from 
custody, sentencing, or acceptance of a negotiated plea;
  The right to notice of the offender's release or escape;
  The right to consideration for the interest of the victim in a trial 
free from unreasonable delay;
  The right to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
  The right to consideration for the safety of the victim in 
determining any release from custody; and
  The right to notice of your rights as a victim.

[[Page 1032]]

  Conditions in our nation today are significantly different from those 
in 1789, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution without 
providing explicitly for the rights of crime victims. In 1789, there 
weren't 9 million victims of violent crime every year. In fact, there 
are more victims of violent crime each year in this country now than 
there were people in the country when the Constitution was written.
  Moreover, there is good reason why defendants' rights were embedded 
in the Constitution in 1789 and victims' rights were not--the way the 
criminal justice system worked then, victims did not need any guarantee 
of these rights.
  In America in the late 18th century and well into the 19th century, 
public prosecutors did not exist. Victims could, and did, commence 
criminal cases themselves, by hiring a sheriff to arrest the defendant, 
and initiating a private prosecution. The core rights in our 
amendment--to notice, to attend, and to be heard--were inherently made 
available to the victim. As Juan Cardenas, writing in the Harvard 
Journal of Law and Public Policy, observed, ``At trial, generally, 
there were no lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense. 
Victims of crime simply acted as their own counsel, although wealthier 
crime victims often hired a prosecutor.''
  Gradually, public prosecution replaced the system of private 
prosecution. With the explosive growth of crime in this country in 
recent years (the rate of violent crime has more than quadrupled over 
the last 35 years), it became easier and easier for the victim to be 
left aside in the process.
  As other scholars have noted:

       With the establishment of the prosecutor the conditions for 
     the general alienation of the victim from the legal process 
     further increase. The victim is deprived of his ability to 
     determine the course of a case and is deprived of the ability 
     to gain restitution from the proceedings. Under such 
     conditions the incentives to report crime and to cooperate 
     with the prosecution diminish. As the importance of the 
     prosecution increases, the role of the victim is transformed 
     from principal actor to a resource that may be used at the 
     prosecutor's discretion.

  Thus, we see why the Constitution must be amended to guarantee these 
rights:
  There was no need to guarantee these rights in the Constitution in 
1789;
  The criminal justice system has changed dramatically since then; and
  The prevalence of crime in America has changed dramatically creating 
the need and circumstances to respond to these developments and restore 
balance in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing the rights of 
violent crime victims in the Constitution.
  Among the amendment's supporters are Professor Laurence Tribe of the 
Harvard Law School.
  Let me just briefly quote portions of his testimony from the House 
hearing on the amendment last Congress:

       The rights in question--rights of crime victims not to be 
     victimized yet again through the process by which government 
     bodies and officials prosecute, punish, and release the 
     accused or convicted offender--are indisputably basic human 
     rights against government, rights that any civilized system 
     of justice would aspire to protect and strive never to 
     violate.
       [O]ur Constitution's central concerns involve protecting 
     the rights of individuals to participate in all those 
     government processes that directly and immediately involve 
     those individuals and affect their lives in some focused and 
     particular way . . . The parallel rights of victims to 
     participate in these proceedings are no less basic, even 
     though they find no parallel recognition in the explicit text 
     of the U.S. Constitution.
       The fact that the States and Congress, within their 
     respective jurisdictions, already have ample affirmative 
     authority to enact rules protecting these rights is . . . not 
     a reason for opposing an amendment altogether . . . The 
     problem, rather, is that such rules are likely, as experience 
     to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection 
     whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, 
     traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an 
     accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are 
     genuinely threatened.

  Some people argue that state victims' rights amendments are 
sufficient.
  However, crime victims throughout the country, including those in the 
other 18 states, deserve to have rights, just as we applied civil 
rights to people throughout our great nation 30 years ago.
  Moreover, state amendments lack the force that a federal 
constitutional amendment would have, and too often are given short 
shrift:
  Maryland has a state amendment. But when Cheryl Rae Enochs Resch was 
beaten to death with a ceramic beer mug by her husband, her mother was 
not notified of this killer's early release only two and a half years 
into his ten year sentence, and was not given the opportunity to be 
heard about this release, in violation of the state amendment.
  Arizona has a state amendment. But an independent audit of victim-
witness programs in four Arizona counties, including Maricopa County 
where Phoenix is located, found that:
  Victims were not consistently notified of hearing during which 
conditions of a defendant's release were discussed . . .
  Victims were not consistently . . . conferred with by prosecutors 
regarding plea bargains . . .; and
  Victims were not consistently . . . provided with an opportunity to 
request post-conviction notification.
  Ohio has a state amendment. But when the murderer of Maxine Johnson's 
husband change his plea, Maxine was not notified of the public hearing, 
and then was not given the opportunity to testify at his sentencing, as 
provided for in Ohio law.
  A Justice Department-supported study of the implementation of state 
victims' rights amendments, released last year, made similar findings:

       Even in states with strong legal protections for victims' 
     rights, the Victims' Rights study revealed that many victims 
     are denied their rights. Statutes themselves appear to be 
     insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims' rights.
       Nearly two-thirds of crime victims, even in states with 
     strong victims' rights protection, were not notified that the 
     accused offender was out on bond.
       Nearly half of all victims, even in the strong protection 
     states, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearing--
     notice that is essential if they are to exercise their right 
     to make a statement at sentencing.
       A substantial number of victims reported that they were not 
     given an opportunity to make a victim impact statement at 
     sentencing or parole.

  State amendments simply are not enough--they provide different rights 
in different states, they do not exist at all in others, and they are 
too often ignored when they do exist.
  We implore members of this body to examine this amendment, and to 
help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation.
  The text of the amendment which we are introducing today is the very 
same text which the Judiciary Committee passed on a strong bipartisan 
basis last summer. Sen Kyl and I urge the leaders of the Senate and of 
the committee to move this amendment expeditiously, so that the clock 
does not run out on us yet again. This amendment has been the subject 
of three Senate hearings, two hearings in the House, and an extensive 
examination and debate in the Judiciary Committee.
  We urge Senators Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, 
to schedule a hearing on the amendment in January or February, with a 
markup to follow shortly thereafter. It is our hope that the committee 
can complete its action with all deliberate speed, and we call upon our 
distinguished Leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, to commit to a floor 
vote on the amendment during National Victims' Rights Week in late 
April.
  After two hundred years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the 
millions of victims of violent crime? I believe that is our obligation 
and should be our biggest priority--not only for the crime victims, 
but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a Crime Victims' Rights 
Constitutional Amendment.
  I want to personally thank Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to 
accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing 
to work with him in the months to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to provide that expenditures for a 
fiscal year shall exceed neither revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 
per centum of the Nation's gross domestic product for the calendar

[[Page 1033]]

year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


             balanced budget/spending limitation amendment

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Balanced 
Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment--a joint resolution proposing to 
amend the Constitution of the United States to establish both a federal 
spending limit and a requirement that the federal government maintain a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that although we may have succeeded in 
balancing the unified budget, we still have two very different visions 
of where we should be headed. Is a balanced budget the paramount goal, 
even if it comes with substantially higher taxes and more spending? Or 
is the real goal of a balanced budget to be more responsible with 
people's hard-earned tax dollars--to limit government's size and give 
people more choices and more control over their lives? Before we try to 
answer those questions, let us try to give them some context.
  When we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing 
and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of 
spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took 
office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of 
$6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That 
is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But 
all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working 
taxpayers.
  The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America 
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That 
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and 
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one 
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working 
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
  Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal 
government imposes would be helpful. Consider that federal revenues hit 
a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 
1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will continue 
to climb--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will 
be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and 
fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues 
broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession.
  For me, it is not enough to balance the budget if it means that hard-
working families continue to be overtaxed. It is not enough to balance 
the budget if government continues to grow, seemingly without limits, 
taking choice and freedom away from people in the process. And it is 
not enough to balance the budget by collecting so much in taxes that it 
leads the economy into recession.
  A balanced budget is not the only goal, or even the highest goal. A 
balanced budget should be the way we find what is the appropriate size 
and scope of government--the way to make Washington more respectful of 
hard-working taxpayers' earnings and their desire to do right by 
themselves and their families. That is where our paramount concern 
should be--with the taxpayers.
   Mr. President, last year was the first time in nearly 30 years that 
Washington managed to balance its books. In fact, we posted a record 
unified budget surplus of $70 billion, and we did so even though we 
have no constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Some will use 
that fact to argue there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. I 
would suggest to them that they look back at what happened last 
October.
  Just three weeks--exactly 21 days--after confirming that the federal 
government had indeed achieved its first budget surplus in a 
generation, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill that used 
fully a third of the surplus for increased spending on a variety of 
government programs other than Social Security, tax relief, or 
repayment of the national debt.
  Many people will recall that President Clinton pledged in his State 
of the Union address a year ago to ``save every penny of any surplus'' 
for Social Security, yet he was the first in line with a long list of 
programs to be funded out of the budget surplus. And fearful that if 
the President did not get his way he would veto the budget and tar 
Congress with the blame for another government shutdown, many Members 
of Congress went along and voted for this raid on the surplus.
  That was just the first in what is expected to be a series of efforts 
by President Clinton to spend down the surplus in coming months. 
Another $2.5 billion supplemental spending request is already in the 
works.
  Coupled with a peacetime tax burden that is at an all-time high and 
growing, this portends a dangerous return to the old ways of budget-
busting, bigger government--that is, unless we agree to abide by the 
lasting discipline of a constitutional requirement to balance the 
budget.
  The Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment would impose 
discipline on Congress and the President in two ways. First, it would 
require that we maintain a balanced federal budget. Second, consistent 
with the vision of limited government, it would limit federal spending 
to 19 percent of the national income, as measured by the Gross Domestic 
Product. That is roughly the level of revenue collected by the 
government over the last 40 years. Interestingly, a December 1998 
report by the Joint Economic Committee concludes that the optimal level 
of spending may actually be lower--17.5 percent of GDP.
  In other words, beyond a certain point--the Joint Committee suggests 
it is 17.5 percent of GDP--government's claim to private resources can 
actually hurt the economy. Consider, for example, that economic growth 
during the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent 
annually, whereas we averaged 3.9 percent annual growth during the 
period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase.
  Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential 
operations is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax 
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent 
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax 
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the 
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's 
unified budget deficit.
  The advantage of the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment is 
that it keeps our eye on the ball. It tells Congress to limit spending. 
And by linking spending to economic growth, it gives Congress a 
positive incentive to enact pro-growth economic and tax policies. Only 
a healthy and growing economy--measured by GDP--would increase the 
dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend, although always 
proportionate to the size of the economy. In other words, 19 percent of 
a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of 
a smaller GDP.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the need for a balanced budget 
amendment, and the advantages of the Balanced Budget/Spending 
Limitation Amendment in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S. J. Res. 4

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

[[Page 1034]]



                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of 
     the United States Government for any fiscal year may not 
     exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
       ``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the 
     outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year may 
     not exceed 19 per centum of the Nation's gross domestic 
     product for the last calendar year ending before the 
     beginning of such fiscal year.
       ``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for 
     suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article 
     for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole 
     number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for 
     a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 per 
     centium of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last 
     calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal 
     year.
       ``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except those for the repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal 
     year beginning after its ratification and to subsequent 
     fiscal years.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution to provide for a Balanced Budget 
Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the use of Social Security 
surpluses to achieve compliance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                balanced budget constitutional amendment

  Mr. GRAMM. President, I rise today with Senator Gorton to introduce a 
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment which is designed to protect 
Social Security. Since we last considered a balanced budget amendment 
in the Senate, we have achieved balance in the unified federal budget 
for the first time in 30 years, and have made substantial progress 
toward achieving balance without relying on the surpluses currently 
accumulating in Social Security. For 1998, the Department of the 
Treasury reports that the federal government ran a unified budget 
surplus of $70 billion, and an on-budget deficit of $29 billion when 
the $99 billion surplus in Social Security is not counted. This on-
budget deficit is projected to disappear by 2002 under current budget 
policies.
  The Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment I am introducing today 
is identical to S.J. Res. 1 of the 105th Congress, which received 66 
votes in the Senate on March 4, 1997, except that surplus revenues in 
Social Security are not counted in determining compliance.
  The President and a majority of Congress have expressed support for 
balancing the budget without counting Social Security surpluses, and 
now that goal is within our reach. We should take this opportunity to 
approve this Constitutional amendment and send it to the States for 
ratification. This Constitutional amendment would provide the structure 
and enforcement mechanism to allow us to achieve this bipartisan goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and 
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with 
which we are all too familiar: the ever-increasing cost of political 
campaigns. Sadly, this cost can be counted not only in millions of 
dollars but also in lost credibility. Each election year, our political 
system and we as representatives lose the invaluable and irreplaceable 
trust of the American people.
  The enormous amount of money required to wage a political campaign 
today has given rise to the pervasive belief that our elections--
indeed, even we ourselves--are up for sale to the highest bidder. 
Though this is not the reality, the fact that it is the perception is 
almost as damning.
  It is time to strike a blow against the anything-goes fundraising and 
spending encouraged by both political parties. The need to limit 
campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever: the total cost of 
Congressional campaigns skyrocketed from $446 million in 1990 to over 
$620 million in 1996. This represents a 71-percent increase in just six 
years. Although fundraising slowed in the election cycle just ended, 
candidates for general election in 1998 still spent over $10 million 
more than their counterparts in 1996.
  Make no mistake: this lull is a temporary one. Experts attribute the 
slowed spending last year to the unusually large number of 
uncompetitive elections. I know this is true because in my state, which 
was the setting for highly competitive elections for my Senate seat as 
well as the governorship and other state offices, candidates spent 
record amounts and made 1998 the most expensive election year in South 
Carolina history. In fact, although the total cost of all Congressional 
elections increased only slightly this year, candidates for Senate 
office spent over 15 percent more than their counterparts in 1996.
  We can be sure that in 2000, election spending will skyrocket to new, 
astounding levels. And we can be equally sure that this will add to the 
public's already overwhelming cynicism about its representatives and to 
the problem of corruption, or at least its appearance in our political 
system.
  At best, the obsession with money distracts us from the people's 
business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political 
process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they don't conflict with 
the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted 
to accommodate fundraisers.
  All this is the result of the rising costs of political campaigns. 
Ironically, campaign expenditures have risen dramatically, far 
exceeding inflation, since Congress attempted campaign finance reform 
in 1974. Even greater than the increases in aggregate campaign costs 
were those for average winning candidates--the most useful measure of 
the real costs of running for office. The average cost for a winning 
House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to over $640,000 in 1998. For 
a victorious Senate candidate, the cost of victory rose from $609,000 
to $4.4 million last year.
  I remember Senator Richard Russell used to say, ``They give you a six 
year term in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a statesman, the next 
two years to be a politician, and the last two years to be a 
demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as 
statesmen. We proceed straight to demagoguery after an election because 
of the imperatives of raising money.
  The public demands the system be cleaned up. But how? For years, 
Senator Specter and I have introduced a constitutional amendment 
allowing Congress to set reasonable campaign expenditure limits. Today 
Senator Specter and I will reintroduce our amendment to empower 
Congress and the States to limit campaign spending as they see fit. I 
believe a constitutional amendment is the only way to fix the system; 
yet since 1976, Congress has failed to adopt one. It has opted instead 
for a series of half-hearted, piece-meal solutions, with predictable 
results.
  For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle 
runaway campaign spending through statutory means. Again and again, 
Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past 
campaign finance reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship 
as Democrats and Republicans each have tried to gore the other's sacred 
cows.
  The most recent statutory attempt to reform our tangled campaign 
system was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Although I 
supported this legislation and will do so again this year, I have grave 
doubts about its ability to effectively reform our tangled campaign 
finance system. I fear McCain-Feingold never will be enacted, and that 
even if it passes, it will not withstand the Supreme Court's scrutiny.
  Since 1976, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not 
uphold any law that limits the money political candidates can spend to 
win office. The most recent example of the Court's position, as well as 
of the obstacles local and state officials attempting reform

[[Page 1035]]

face in their courts, came last November, when the Supreme Court 
refused to entertain an appeal from the City of Cincinnati involving an 
ordinance that limited the amount city council candidates could spend 
trying to get elected. That ordinance had been struck down by a lower 
federal court as unconstitutional. So you see, Mr. President, no 
statutory legislation--at the federal, state, or local level--is going 
to succeed at cleaning up our political system because no such 
legislation will pass constitutional muster.
  The framework for today's campaign finance system was erected back in 
1974, when Congress responded to public outrage over the Watergate 
scandals and the disturbing money trails from the 1972 Presidential 
election by passing, on a bipartisan basis, a comprehensive campaign 
finance law. I was here in 1974, and I was proud to support the Federal 
Election Campaign Act. The centerpiece of this reform was a limitation 
on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that spending limits were 
the only rational alternative to a system that essentially awards 
office to the highest bidder.
  Unfortunately, in 1976 the Supreme Court overturned these spending 
limits in its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision. The Court 
mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money 
with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the 
Court drew a tortuous distinction between campaign contributions and 
campaign expenditures. The Court concluded that limiting an 
individual's campaign contributions was a justifiable abridgment of the 
First Amendment, on the grounds that ``the governmental interest in 
preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs 
considerations of free speech.''
  Yet the Court also concluded, in a dichotomous and confusing 
decision, that the state's interest in preventing corruption and its 
appearance did not justify limiting a candidate's total expenditures. 
This, the Court ruled, constituted an unacceptable infringement on 
candidates' speech.
  I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental 
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption--
does not justify limits on campaign spending. The Court committed a 
grave error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free 
speech. The fact is, imposing spending limits in federal campaigns 
would help restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley 
decision.
  As Professor Gerald G. Ashdown wrote in the New England Law Review, 
amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign 
expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches 
to reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in 
Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance 
atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could 
constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, 
candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the 
troubles . . . would be eliminated.''
  Let us be done with the hollow charge that spending limits are 
somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White pointed 
out in his dissent from the majority's Buckley opinion, both 
contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content 
of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of 
political speech in general.
  The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on 
campaign contributions but struck down restrictions on how much 
candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical 
reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I 
have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of speech. By 
failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear 
unwilling to speak up in his own defense.
  Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent 
to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, 
Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate 
with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a 
significant head start.''
  Indeed, Justice Marshall went further. He argued that by upholding 
the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall 
spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal 
wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right. The Buckley decision has been 
a boon to wealthy candidates, who can flood the airwaves and drown out 
their opponents' voices.
  Make no mistake: political speech is not free. A political 
candidate's ability to disseminate his ideas and speak to the voters 
depends entirely on his finances. Thus, candidates who are personally 
wealthy or possess large campaign coffers have a tremendous advantage 
over poorer candidates--they always will enjoy more speech. The 
amendment Senator Specter and I propose today will help level the 
playing field between rich and poor candidates and ensure that all 
enjoy equal speech.
  Believe me, Mr. President, I am not enunciating any radical view 
today. The Court itself equated money with speech in its Buckley 
decision. Of course, the Court--and critics of this amendment--adheres 
to the belief that limiting candidate expenditures is a violation of 
the First Amendment. Yet the Court rules in 1976 that there exist 
compelling interests--in this case, the need to prevent the appearance 
and reality of corruption--to justify the state in circumscribing 
protected speech. All this amendment does is apply the Court's 
rationale to candidates' speech.
  Buckley's nullification of spending limits has helped give rise to 
American's belief that political offices are up for sale to the highest 
bidder and has curtailed public discourse. By rendering spending limits 
impossible it has fueled the escalating costs of campaigns and forced 
politicians to focus more and more on fundraising and less on important 
public issues. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley 
versus Valeo by empowering Congress to limit campaign spending.
  My proposed constitutional amendment would accomplish this. It does 
not proscribe specific cures for what ails our campaign finance system. 
Instead, it would provide Congress the authority to reform the system 
by limiting candidate spending.
  To a distressing degree today, elections are determined not in the 
political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections 
are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate 
into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of 
corporations and special interests.
  Mr. President, campaign spending must be brought under control. The 
constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to 
impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign 
expenditures.
  Such a reform would have four important effects. It would end the 
mindless pursuits of enormous campaign war chests. Also, it would free 
candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them 
to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't 
have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. 
Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And finally, 
it would create a more level playing field for all candidates.
  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would like to elaborate on the 
advantages of a constitutional amendment such as I propose over 
statutory attempts to reform the campaign system. Recent history amply 
demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional 
route. It is not coincidence that the six most-recent amendments to the 
Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. These are 
profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy; it is entirely 
appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment.
  And let's not be distracted by the argument that amending the 
constitution will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering 
on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970s, and we haven't 
advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century, 
and no legislative solution has done the job.

[[Page 1036]]

  Excluding the unusual case of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which 
required over 200 years to be ratified, the last five constitutional 
amendments took an average of only 17 months to be adopted. There is no 
reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the 
States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern 
the 2000 elections. Indeed, this approach could prove more expeditious 
than the alternative statutory approach. This joint resolution, once 
passed by the Congress, will go directly to the States for 
ratification. Once ratified, it will become the law of the land and 
will not be subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge.
  Furthermore, I anticipate and reject the argument that if we were to 
pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be 
unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign 
expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did 
exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again.
  Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess 
directly, decisively, and conclusively. The Supreme Court has chosen to 
ignore the overwhelmingly detrimental effects of money in today's 
campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it elucidated a vague and 
inconsistent definition of free speech. In its place, I urge passage of 
this amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of expression for all who 
seek Federal office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Ashcroft):
  S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             the constitutional balanced budget act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today, once again, introducing a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In so doing, I continue 
the effort that I and many of my colleagues have long pursued to 
provide a permanent and strong mandate for a fiscally responsible path 
for our Nation.
  It is a political reality, of course, that Congress' success in 
decreasing our deficit levels and achieving a balanced budget in the 
105th Congress to a certain extent mitigated the urgency of passing 
this Constitutional Amendment.
  In my view, however, this is the ideal time to move forward on a 
constitutional amendment. The fact that we have reached a balanced 
budget has shown that it can be done. Significantly, it has refuted the 
arguments and scare tactics of opponents that a balanced budget would 
mean the end of Social Security and Medicare. Rather, we now have a 
record to demonstrate the strong benefits of a balanced budget to our 
economy in general and to each segment of our society in particular.
  I am as proud as any Member of this body of our recent success in 
restraining the deficit. But that success does not mean that this 
amendment is no longer necessary. Our history, unfortunately, 
demonstrates that the fiscal discipline of recent years is the 
exception, not the rule. The political incentives in this town to spend 
now and pay later remain. Thus, it is as true now as it always been 
that only a structural change in our basic charter can ensure long term 
fiscal responsibility and a secure future for our children and 
grandchildren. This is a matter that remains vital to the economic 
health of the State of Utah and the Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 7

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-
     thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following 
     article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, 
     which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of 
     the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States within seven years after the 
     date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2004 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

                          ____________________