[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15510-15515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 1345. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


              CAPTIVE EXOTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic 
Animal Protection Act, which would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting 
practice of ``canned hunts,'' or caged kills. I am pleased to be joined 
by my cosponsors Senators Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, 
Kerry, Kohl, Moynihan, Murray, Schumer, and Torricelli.
  A typical canned hunt operation collects surplus animals from wild 
animal parks, circuses, and even petting zoos, and then sells the right 
to brutally kill these animals to so-called ``hunters.'' In reality, no 
hunting, tracking or shooting skills are required. For a price, any 
``hunter'' is guaranteed a kill of the exotic animal of his choice--one 
located by a guide and blocked from escape. A wild boar ``kill'' may 
sell for $250, a pygmy goat for $400, while a rare Arabian Ibex may 
fetch up to $5000. The actual ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs 
within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for 
escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals often have lost 
their instinctual impulse to flee from the so-called hunters who 
``stalk'' them.
  The actual killing methods employed by these hunters only compound 
the cruelty of slaughtering these often trusting animals. In order to 
preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' hunters will fire multiple shots 
into non-vital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful 
death.
  Canned hunts are condemned by pro-animal and pro-hunting groups alike 
for being cruel and unethical. Many real hunters believe that canned 
hunts are unethical and make a mockery of their sport. For example, the 
Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy 
Roosevelt, has called canned hunts ``unfair'' and ``unsportsmanlike.'' 
Bill Burton, the former outdoors writer for the Baltimore Sun and a 
hunter, testifying in support of this legislation, stated, ``[t]here is 
a common belief that the hunting of creatures which have no reasonable 
avenue to escape is not up to traditional standards. Shooting game in 
confinement is not within these standards.''
  In addition to being unethical, these canned hunts present a serious 
health and safety problem for livestock and native wildlife. Accidental 
escapes of animals from exotic game ranches are not uncommon, posing a 
very real threat to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. John 
Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, 
has stated that, ``[t]uberculosis and other disease documented amount 
game ranch animals in surrounding states,'' pose ``an extremely serious 
threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' In recognition of this threat, 
Wyoming itself has banned canned hunting facilities, as have the States 
of California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, 
New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, 
the remaining States lack legislation to outlaw canned hunts, and 
because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal 
legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.
  My bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress, 
S. 995. The legislation I am introducing today will specifically target 
only canned hunt facilities, and will not affect any animal industries, 
such as cattle ranchers, rodeos, livestock shows, petting zoos, horse 
and dog racing, or wildlife hunting. Furthermore, this bill will not 
apply to large hunting ranches, such as those over 1,000 acres, which 
give the hunted animal a greater opportunity to escape. This bill 
merely seeks to ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic 
animals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.
  The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target 
of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many of us. In 
an era when many of us are seeking to curb violence in our culture, 
canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does 
not belong in our society.
  I urge my colleagues who want to understand the cruelty involved in a 
canned hunt to visit my office and view a videotape of an actual canned 
hunt. You will witness a defenseless Corsican ram, cornered near a 
fence, being shot over and over again with arrows, clearly experiencing 
an agonizing death, only to be dealt a final blow by a firearm after 
needless suffering.
  Please join me in support of this legislation which will help to put 
an end to this needless suffering.
  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. 1345

       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 ``Captive Exotic Animal 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 48. Exotic animals

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or 
     possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of 
     allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for 
     entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a 
     species not historically indigenous to the United States, 
     that has been held in captivity for the shorter of--
       ``(A) the greater part of the life of the animal; or
       ``(B) a period of 1 year;

     whether or not the defendant knew the length of the 
     captivity; and
       ``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period 
     during which an animal--
       ``(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving primarily by 
     foraging for naturally occurring food, roaming at will over 
     an open area of not less than 1,000 acres; and
       ``(B) has the opportunity to avoid hunters.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``48. Exotic animals.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1346. A bill to ensure the independence and nonpartisan operation 
of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; to the 
Committee on Small Business.


                   independent office of advocacy act

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 
Independent Office of Advocacy Act. This bill has been drafted to build 
on the success of the Office of Advocacy over the past 23 years. It is 
intended to strengthen the foundation to make the Office of Advocacy a 
stronger and more effective advocate for all small businesses 
throughout the United States.
  The Office of Advocacy is a unique office within the Federal 
government. It is part of the Small Business Administration (SBA/
Agency), and its director, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is nominated 
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the 
Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business 
within the Federal government. It is supposed to develop proposals for 
changing government policies to help

[[Page 15511]]

small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and 
interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies.
  As the director of the Office of Advocacy, the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy has a dual responsibility. On the one hand, he is the 
independent watchdog for small business. On the other hand, he is also 
a part of the President's Administration. As you can imagine, those are 
sometimes very difficult roles to play simultaneously.
  The Independent Office of Advocacy Act is designed to make the Office 
of Advocacy and Chief Counsel for Advocacy a fully independent advocate 
within the Executive Branch acting on behalf of the small business 
community. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of 
Advocacy will fight on behalf of small businesses regardless of the 
position taken on critical issues by the President and his 
Administration.
  The Office of Advocacy as envisioned by the Independent Office of 
Advocacy Act will be unique within the executive branch. The Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy will be a wide-ranging advocate, who will be free 
to take positions contrary to the Administration's policies and to 
advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they impact 
small businesses.
  In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be 
the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal 
government. Over time, it has been assumed that the Office of Advocacy 
is the ``independent'' voice for small business. While I strongly 
believe that the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
should be independent and free to advocate or support positions that 
might be contrary to the administration's policies, I have come to find 
that the Office is not as independent as necessary to do the job 
adequately for small business.
  For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy comes from the 
Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated 
by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall 
staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time 
employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of 
Advocacy. Today's allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on-
board as the result of the hiring freeze imposed by the SBA 
Administrator. The Independence of the Office is diminished when the 
Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for 
new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the 
discretion of the Administrator.
  In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed a 
report for me on personnel practices at the SBA (GAO/GGD-99-68). I was 
alarmed by the GAO's finding that Assistant and Regional Advocates 
hired by the Office of Advocacy share many of the attributes of 
Schedule C political appointees. In fact, Regional Advocates are 
frequently cleared by the White House personnel office--the same 
procedure followed for approving Schedule C political appointees.
  The facts discussed in the GAO Report cast the Office of Advocacy in 
a whole new light--one that had not been apparent until now. The report 
raises questions, concerns and suspicious regarding the independence of 
the Office of Advocacy. Has there been a time when the Office did not 
pursue a matter as vigorously as it might have were it not for direct 
or indirect political influence? Prior to receipt of the GAO Report, my 
response was a resounding ``No.'' But now, a question mark arises.
  Let me take a moment and note that I will be unrelenting in my 
efforts to insure the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy 
in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small 
businesses. However, so long as the Administration controls the budget 
allocated to the Office of Advocacy and controls who is hired, the 
independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this 
situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small 
business community.
  The Independent Office of Advocacy Act builds a firewall to prevent 
the political intrustion into the management of day-to-day operations 
of the Office of Advocacy. The bill requires that the SBA's budget 
include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy. No longer would 
its funds come from the general operating account of the Agency. The 
separate account would also provide for the number of full-time 
employees who would work within the Office of Advocacy. No longer would 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy have to seek approval from the SBA 
Administrator to hire staff for the Office of advocacy.
  The bill also continues the practice of allowing the Chief Counsel to 
hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy 
without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by 
federal law and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). I beleive 
this special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees 
within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the 
Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the 
Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small 
businesses.
  Mr. Presdient, the Independent Office of Advocacy Act is a sound 
bill. The bill is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective 
review and consideration by me, the staff of the Committee on Small 
Business, representatives of the small business community, former Chief 
Councels for Advocacy and others. These individuals have also devoted 
much time and effort in actively participating in a Committee 
Roundtable discussion on the Office of Advocacy, which my Committee 
held on April 21, 1999. It is my hope the Committee on Small Business 
will be able to consider the Independent Office of Advocacy Act in the 
near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 1349. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
special resource studies to determine the national significance of 
specific sites as well as the suitability and feasibility of their 
inclusion as units of the National Park System; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


            national park system new area study act of 2000

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Park System New Area Study Act of 2000.
  Mr. President, last year when we passed the National Parks Vision 20-
20 legislation, we made a number of revisions in the way we do business 
within the National Park System. One of those changes concerned the 
conduct of new park studies.
  Prior to the National Park Service undertaking any new area studies, 
and from this point forward, Congress must act affirmatively on a list 
submitted by the Secretary of the Interior for studies on potential new 
units of the System.
  Pursuant to Public Law 105-391, the Secretary has submitted a list 
and this legislation reflects the Secretary's request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous request 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. 1349

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park System New 
     Area Study Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES:

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that pursuant to Public Law 
     105-391, the Administration has submitted a list of areas 
     recommended for study for potential inclusion in the National 
     Park System in fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the 
     Secretary of the Interior to direct special resource studies 
     to determine the national significance of the sites, and/or 
     areas, listed in Section 5 of this Act to determine the 
     national significance of each site, and/or area, as well as 
     the suitability and feasibility of their inclusion as units 
     of the National Park System.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

[[Page 15512]]



     SEC. 4. STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available for the purpose of this Act, 
     the Secretary, shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives individual resource 
     studies of the sites, and/or areas, listed in Section 5 of 
     this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The study under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) identify the location and the suitability and 
     feasibility of designating the sites, and/or areas, as units 
     of the National Park System; and
       (2) include cost estimates for any necessary acquisition, 
     development, operation and maintenance, and identification of 
     alternatives for the management, administration, and 
     protection of the area.

     SEC. 5. SITES AND/OR AREAS.

       (a) The areas recommended for study for potential inclusion 
     in the National Park System include the following:
       (1) Bioluminescent Bay, Mosquito Lagoon, Puerto Rico;
       (2) Brandywine and Paoli Battlefields, Pennsylvania;
       (3) Civil Rights Trail, Nationwide;
       (4) Gaviota Coast Seashore, California;
       (5) Kate Mullaney House, New York;
       (6) Low Country Gullah Culture, South Carolina, Georgia and 
     Florida;
       (7) Nan Madol, Northern Marianas;
       (8) Walden Pond and Woods, in Concord and Lincoln, 
     Massachusetts; and
       (9) World War II sites on Palau and Saipan.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 1350. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the availability of medical savings accounts; to the Committee on 
Finance.


            medical savings account improvement act of 1999

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, on behalf of myself and my 
colleague, Senator Torricelli, I am introducing legislation, the 
Medical Savings Account Improvement Act of 1999, which would make it 
possible for any individual to purchase a medical savings account and 
which would liberalize existing law authorizing medical savings 
accounts in a number of other respects.
  Medical savings accounts are a good idea, Mr. President. They are 
basically IRAs--an idea everybody understands--which must be used for 
payment of medical expenses.
  The widespread use of medical savings accounts should have several 
beneficial consequences.
  They should reduce health care costs. Administrative costs should be 
lower. Consumers with MSAs should use health care services in a more 
discriminating manner. Consumers with MSAs should be more selective in 
choosing providers. This should cause those providers to lower their 
prices to attract medical savings account holders as patients.
  Medical savings accounts can also help to put the patient back into 
the health care equation. Patients should make more cost-conscious 
choices about routine health care. Patients with MSAs would have 
complete choice of provider.
  Medical savings accounts should make health care coverage more 
dependable. MSAs are completely portable. MSAs are still the property 
of the individual even if they change jobs. Hence, for those with MSAs, 
job changes do not threaten them with the loss of health insurance.
  Medical savings accounts should increase health care coverage. 
Perhaps as many as half of the more than 40 million Americans who are 
uninsured at any point in time are without health insurance only for 
four months or less. A substantial number of these people are uninsured 
because they are between jobs. Use of medical savings accounts should 
reduce the number of the uninsured by equipping people to pay their own 
health expenses while unemployed.
  Medical savings accounts should promote personal savings. Since pre-
tax monies are deposited in them, there should be a strong tax 
incentive to use them.
  Mr. President, our bill would do several things:
  First, it would repeal the limitations on the number of MSAs that can 
be established.
  Second, it stipulates that the availability of these accounts is not 
limited to employees of small employers and self-employed individuals.
  Third, it increases the amount of the deduction allowed for 
contributions to medical savings accounts to 100 percent of the 
deduction.
  Fourth, it permits both employees and employers to contribute to 
medical savings accounts.
  Fifth, it reduces the permitted deductibles under high deductible 
plans from $1,500 in the case of individuals to $1,000 and from $3,000 
in the case of couples to $2,000.
  Finally, the bill would permit medical savings accounts to be offered 
under cafeteria plans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1350

       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 ``Medical Savings Account 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL SAVINGS 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Repeal of Limitations on Number of Medical Savings 
     Accounts.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (i) and (j) of section 220 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraph (1) of section 220(c) of such Code is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (D).
       (B) Section 138 of such Code (relating to Medicare+Choice 
     MSA) is amended by striking subsection (f).
       (b) Availability Not Limited To Accounts for Employees of 
     Small Employers and Self-Employed Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Section 220(c)(1)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible individual) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible individual' means, 
     with respect to any month, any individual if--
       ``(i) such individual is covered under a high deductible 
     health plan as of the 1st day of such month, and
       ``(ii) such individual is not, while covered under a high 
     deductible health plan, covered under any health plan--

       ``(I) which is not a high deductible health plan, and
       ``(II) which provides coverage for any benefit which is 
     covered under the high deductible health plan.''

       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 220(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (C).
       (B) Section 220(c) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraph (4) (defining small employer) and by redesignating 
     paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
       (C) Section 220(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraph (4) (relating to deduction limited by compensation) 
     and by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
       (c) Increase in Amount of Deduction Allowed for 
     Contributions to Medical Savings Accounts.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 220(b) of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for any 
     month is the amount equal to \1/12\ of the annual deductible 
     (as of the first day of such month) of the individual's 
     coverage under the high deductible health plan.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     220(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``75 percent 
     of''.
       (d) Both Employers and Employees May Contribute to Medical 
     Savings Accounts.--Paragraph (4) of section 220(b) of such 
     Code, as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)(C), is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Coordination with exclusion for employer 
     contributions.--The limitation which would (but for this 
     paragraph) apply under this subsection to the taxpayer for 
     any taxable year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the 
     amount which would (but for section 106(b)) be includible in 
     the taxpayer's gross income for such taxable year.''.
       (e) Reduction of Permitted Deductibles Under High 
     Deductible Health Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 220(c)(2) of 
     such Code (defining high deductible health plan) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$1,500'' and inserting ``$1,000'', and
       (B) by striking ``$3,000'' in clause (ii) and inserting 
     ``$2,000''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (g) of section 220 of 
     such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``1999''; and
       (B) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1998''.
       (f) Medical Savings Accounts May Be Offered Under Cafeteria 
     Plans.--Subsection

[[Page 15513]]

     (f) of section 125 of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``106(b),''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my 
distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce 
legislation that will provide Americans more choices and control in 
their health care decisions.
  Since becoming available in 1996, medical savings accounts (MSA's) 
have proven to be an effective solution for Americans who are self-
employed, unsatisfied with their current health plan or working for a 
company unable to provide health insurance. By allowing consumers to 
save money tax-free to cover medical expenses, MSA's have ensured that 
people who previously were unable to acquire health coverage, such as 
single parents, the self-employed, small businesses and their 
employees, and working families, now have affordable medical coverage. 
In fact, since MSA's became available, the General Accounting Office 
reports that 37 percent of all MSA's have been purchased by people who 
were previously uninsured.
  Due to current restrictions, however, the size of the market is 
limited. Congress must allow the benefits from MSA's to reach more 
Americans.
  Our bill, the Medical Savings Account Effectiveness Act of 1999, will 
make MSA's a permanent health care option for all Americans by 
expanding enrollment beyond the current cap. This legislation will 
allow both employers and employees to contribute to an MSA and will 
allow policyholders to fully fund the deductible. In addition, it will 
lower the individual deductible to $1,000 and the family deductible to 
$2,000. Finally, it will allow MSA's to be offered through ``cafeteria 
plans.''
  By expanding MSA's, this legislation will give policyholders direct 
control over medical expenditures, offer them a new freedom to select 
the physician or specialist of their choice, and make insurance 
affordable for millions of Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1351. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
and modify the credit for electricity produced from newable resources; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                 the biomass and wind energy tax credit

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 
unfortunate expiration of the section 45 tax credit on June 30 for 
electricity produced from alternative energy sources. In response, I am 
introducing legislation to extend and expand the credit to help sustain 
the public benefits derived from these sources. As many of my 
colleagues know, I authored the section 45 credit in the Senate and it 
was included in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. I am being joined in 
this bipartisan effort today by Senator Murkowski and Senator Harkin.
  Earlier this year, I introduced S. 414 to extend the wind energy 
portion of section 45, which has been extremely successful. The purpose 
of today's bill is to extend and expand the biomass portion of section 
45 to include technologies such as biomass combustion and cofiring 
biomass with coal-fired facilities. Formerly, section 45 only allowed 
the use of closed-loop biomass, which has proven to be unworkable. 
Consequently, the biomass aspect of section 45 has never been utilized. 
The clean, controlled combustion of biomass, which in layman's terms 
consists of woodchips, agricultural byproducts, and untreated 
construction debris, is another proven, effective technology that 
currently generates numerous pollution avoidance and waste management 
public benefits across the nation.
  Unfortunately, the 1992 bill restrictively defined qualifying biomass 
processes by requiring taxpayers to grow the biomass solely for the 
purposes of combustion. This then-untested theory has since proven to 
be singularly uneconomic, and taxpayers have never claimed one single 
cent of tax credits. My bill retains this dormant ``closed-loop'' 
biomass provision in the hopes that some day it may be found feasible.
  In order to retain the environmental, waste management, and the rural 
employment benefits that we currently receive from the existing ``open-
loop'' biomass facilities, by bill rewrites section 45 to allow tax 
credits for clean combustion of wood waste and similar residues in 
these unique facilities. These valuable, yet economically vulnerable, 
facilities that convert 20 million tons of waste into clean electricity 
annually, and which have never received section 45 tax credits, would 
be eligible for the same ten years of tax credits per facility, 
beginning at date of enactment.
  Importantly, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that the 
definition of qualifying biomass materials is limited to organic, 
nonhazardous materials that are clearly proven to burn cleanly without 
any pollution risk. Also, to allay any concern that biomass plants 
might burn paper and thus possibly jeopardize the amount of paper that 
is available to be recycled, I have specifically excluded paper that is 
commonly recycled from the list of materials that would qualify for the 
credit.
  One promising technology that does not yet operate here in the U.S., 
but has now been proven to be feasible and practical, involves the 
cofiring of biomass with coal. A partial tax credit for cofiring would 
stimulate economic growth in rural areas by creating new markets for 
forage crops. The environmental benefits from reduced coal plant 
emissions would also be substantial.
  Finally, my bill acknowledges the potential that biomass combustion 
has to solve the nation's pressing poultry waste problem by making 
electricity produced from the combustion of poultry litter eligible for 
the sec. 45 tax credit. As Chairman Roth has recently pointed out, the 
increased growth of our domestic chicken and turkey industry has 
created the need to find a new, creative means for disposing of the 
waste of some 600 million chickens in the Delaware, Maryland, and 
Virginia peninsula alone.
  Today, much of the waste from these operations (deposited upon 
biomass materials) is spread on farmland, resulting in a nutrient 
runoff that has contaminated streams, rivers and bays, with devastating 
effect on the local environment. Fortunately, scientists in the United 
Kingdom have developed a combustion technology that cleanly disposes of 
the waste and produces clean electricity. While no such plants are 
currently operating in the U.S., state and local authorities in the 
affected jurisdictions assure us that, with the enactment of this 
critical tax credit legislation, action would be taken to build these 
plants immediately.
  With regard to wind energy, and my involvement in supporting this 
technology which goes back to my authorship of the Wind Energy 
Incentives Act of 1992, I am proud to say that this credit is one of 
the success stories of section 45. The public policy benefits of wind 
energy are indisputable: it is clean, safe and abundant within the 
United States. I understand that every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy 
produced in the U.S. can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million 
metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels.
  Mr. President, I believe this bill provides a common sense 
combination of current and new technologies to help maintain the 
economic, environmental and waste management benefits derived from wind 
and biomass power. This bill has strong support from both the biomass 
industry and environmental groups including the Union of Concerned 
Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. I urge my 
colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1351

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

[[Page 15514]]



      SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM RENEWABLE 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Extension and Modification of Placed-in-Service 
     Rules.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Qualified facility.--
       ``(A) Wind facilities.--In the case of a facility using 
     wind to produce electricity, the term 'qualified facility' 
     means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is originally 
     placed in service after December 31, 1993, and before July 1, 
     2004.
       ``(B) Biomass facilities.--In the case of a facility using 
     biomass to produce electricity, the term 'qualified facility' 
     means, with respect to any month, any facility owned, leased, 
     or operated by the taxpayer which is originally placed in 
     service before July 1, 2004, if, for such month--
       ``(i) biomass comprises not less than 75 percent (on a Btu 
     basis) of the average monthly fuel input of the facility for 
     the taxable year which includes such month, or
       ``(ii) in the case of a facility principally using coal to 
     produce electricity, biomass comprises not more than 25 
     percent (on a Btu basis) of the average monthly fuel input of 
     the facility for the taxable year which includes such month.
       ``(C) Special rules.--
       ``(i) In the case of a qualified facility described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i)--

       ``(I) the 10-year period referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be treated as beginning no earlier than the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, and
       ``(II) subsection (b)(3) shall not apply to any such 
     facility originally placed in service before January 1, 1997.

       ``(ii) In the case of a qualified facility described in 
     subparagraph (B)(ii)--

       ``(I) the 10-year period referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be treated as beginning no earlier than the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, and
       ``(II) the amount of the credit determined under subsection 
     (a) with respect to any project for any taxable year shall be 
     adjusted by multiplying such amount (determined without 
     regard to this clause) by 0.59.''.

       (b) Credit Not To Apply To Electricity Sold to Utilities 
     Under Certain Contracts.--Section 45(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations and 
     adjustments) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Credit not to apply to electricity sold to utilities 
     under certain contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit determined under subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to electricity--
       ``(i) produced at a qualified facility placed in service by 
     the taxpayer after June 30, 1999, and
       ``(ii) sold to a utility pursuant to a contract originally 
     entered into before January 1, 1987 (whether or not amended 
     or restated after that date).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
       ``(i) the prices for energy and capacity from such facility 
     are established pursuant to an amendment to the contract 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii);
       ``(ii) such amendment provides that the prices set forth in 
     the contract which exceed avoided cost prices determined at 
     the time of delivery shall apply only to annual quantities of 
     electricity (prorated for partial years) which do not exceed 
     the greater of--

       ``(I) the average annual quantity of electricity sold to 
     the utility under the contract during calendar years 1994, 
     1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, or
       ``(II) the estimate of the annual electricity production 
     set forth in the contract, or, if there is no such estimate, 
     the greatest annual quantity of electricity sold to the 
     utility under the contract in any of the calendar years 1996, 
     1997, or 1998; and

       ``(iii) such amendment provides that energy and capacity in 
     excess of the limitation in clause (ii) may be--

       ``(I) sold to the utility only at prices that do not exceed 
     avoided cost prices determined at the time of delivery, or
       ``(II) sold to a third party subject to a mutually agreed 
     upon advance notice to the utility.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, avoided cost prices shall 
     be determined as provided for in 18 CFR 292.304(d)(1) or any 
     successor regulation.''.
       (c) Qualified Facilities Include All Biomass Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 45(c)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified energy 
     resources) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) biomass.''.
       (2) Biomass defined.--Paragraph (2) of section 45(c) of 
     such Code (relating to definitions) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Biomass.--The term `biomass' means--
       ``(A) any organic material from a plant which is planted 
     exclusively for purposes of being used at a qualified 
     facility to produce electricity, or
       ``(B) any solid, nonhazardous, cellulosic waste material 
     which is segregated from other waste materials and which is 
     derived from--
       ``(i) any of the following forest-related resources: mill 
     residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush, but not 
     including old-growth timber,
       ``(ii) poultry waste,
       ``(iii) urban sources, including waste pallets, crates, and 
     dunnage, manufacturing and construction wood wastes, and 
     landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings, but not including 
     unsegregated municipal solid waste (garbage) or paper that is 
     commonly recycled, or
       ``(iv) agriculture sources, including orchard tree crops, 
     vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop by-products 
     or residues.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to electricity produced after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. 
        Hollings):
  S.J. Res. 29. A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to 
the boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


     granting congressional consent for the georgia-south carolina 
                           interstate compact

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I rise to offer a joint 
resolution to grant congressional consent to an Interstate Compact 
between my state of Georgia and the state of South Carolina which 
resolves a border dispute whose origin dates back to the Articles of 
Confederation between the two states. On June 25, 1990, the Supreme 
Court in Georgia vs. South Carolina (No. 74, Original) ruled that 
Georgia lost sovereignty over the Barnwell Islands in the Savannah 
River to South Carolina. These islands had shifted due to erosion and 
accretion since the time of the first scientifically accurate survey of 
the area in 1855. The Supreme Court further ordered the two states to 
determine a new boundary and submit it to the Court for final approval.
  During the summer of 1993, the two states with the assistance of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reached an 
agreement on a common boundary. Subsequently, the agreement was adopted 
by the Georgia General Assembly on April 5, 1994, and by the South 
Carolina General Assembly on May 29, 1996.
  On May 26, 1999, the agreed boundary was forwarded to Congress for 
its approval in accordance with the U.S. Constitution Article IV, 
Section 10. This Compact once adopted will amend the Beaufort 
Convention of 1787.
  With passage of this resolution, granting Congress' consent to the 
Georgia-South Carolina Interstate Compact, Congress will have fulfilled 
its obligation, and the agreed upon boundary will be presented to the 
Supreme Court for its final approval and application. I am pleased to 
have my colleagues from South Carolina, Senators Thurmond and Hollings, 
and my colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, join me in sponsoring 
this historic piece of legislation. In this day, where members from 
both sides of the aisle are speaking of the need for more 
bipartisanship, I would like to commend these two great states for 
coming together and reaching an agreement on such a contentious issue 
and ask for the full Senate's support for this important and necessary 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the following 
chronology be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 GEORGIA-SOUTH CAROLINA BORDER AGREEMENT FOR THE LOWER REACHES OF THE 
            SAVANNAH RIVER TO THE SEA--CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

       April 28, 1787--The Beaufort Convention: Under the Articles 
     of Confederation of 1778, South Carolina and Georgia agreed 
     that the boundary between the two states would be in the 
     northern branch of the Savannah River, reserving all islands 
     in the river to Georgia.
       January 30, 1922--Georgia v. South Carolina (No. 16, 
     Original): The U.S. Supreme Court held that where there were 
     no islands in the boundary rivers, the boundary in on the 
     water midway between the main banks when the water is at 
     ordinary stage. When there are islands, the boundary is 
     midway between the banks of the island and the South Carolina 
     shore, with the water at ordinary stage.
       June 25, 1990--Georgia v. South Carolina (No. 74, 
     Original): The U.S. Supreme Court held that Georgia lost 
     sovereignty over the

[[Page 15515]]

     Barnwell Islands to South Carolina by acquiescence, and that 
     the Beaufort Convention did not control new islands that 
     later emerged in the Savannah River. Accordingly, the Court 
     generally adopted the findings (with some exceptions) of its 
     Special Master, Senior Judge Walter E. Hoffman, with regard 
     to several disputed islands and the headlands of the river. 
     The Court directed the two states to determine the boundary 
     in accordance with the principles in its rulings, and to 
     submit the boundary to the Court for final approval.
       June 24, 1991--Cooperative Agreement: Both states and the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
     entered a cooperative agreement to survey the area and plot 
     the boundary. In order to comply with the requirement that 
     the river be charted as is existed prior to the dredgings and 
     changes in the navigational courses which occurred in the 
     1880's, the parties adopted the Special Master's decision 
     that the main thread of the Savannah River as it existed on 
     the 1855 charts would be used. NOAA flew new aerial surveys 
     of the river and plotted the 1855 thread of the river on the 
     new surveys.
       Summer, 1993--Joint Meetings and Negotiations: After NOAA 
     completed its work, the states realized that the course of 
     the river had changed so substantially since 1855 that using 
     the 1855 thread of the river was unworkable. Because of 
     recent navigational channel deepening efforts by the U.S. 
     Corps of Engineers, Georgia and South Carolina agreed to use 
     the northern edge of the shipping channel, including any 
     turning basins, as the primary agreed upon boundary. More 
     specifically, the ``new'' boundary would start from the 
     middle of the river above Pennyworth Island, between 
     Pennyworth Island and the South Carolina shore, and then to 
     the tidegate and the northern edge of the Back River turning 
     basin. After following the navigational channel to the buoy 
     nearest the 3-mile territorial limit, the boundary would then 
     depart eastward along the 104 degree bearing adopted by the 
     Court.
       April 5, 1994--Georgia General Assembly Adopts Agreed 
     Boundary: Georgia adopted the agreed boundary line, using the 
     Annual Survey--1992, Savannah Harbor, as amended by the 
     Savannah Harbor Deepening Project. The line was plotted using 
     the Georgia Plane Coordinate System.
       May 29, 1996--South Carolina General Assembly Adopts Agreed 
     Boundary: South Carolina adopted the agreed boundary line, 
     but asked NOAA to covert the Georgia coordinates to points of 
     latitude and longitude.
       November, 1998--Charts assembled: Because only three 
     original copies of the 1992 channel charts were available, a 
     special printing of the color charts was run, with the 
     Savannah Harbor Deepening Project charts bound together.
       May 26, 1999--Agreed Boundary Forwarded for Congressional 
     Approval: The States submitted the agreed boundary to the 
     Congress for approval as an Interstate Compact pursuant to 
     the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 10, which 
     amends the Beaufort Convention of 1787.

                          ____________________