[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15873-15882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1362. A bill to establish a commission to study the airline 
industry and to recommend policies to ensure consumer information and 
choice; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        travel agent commissions

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
establish a commission to study the future of the travel agent industry 
and determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel 
agents.
  Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major 
airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our 
nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, 
the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in an 
competitive effort to reduce costs.
  I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between 
airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many 
travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence 
of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that 
employs over 250,000 Americans.
  This bill will explore these concerns through the establishment of a 
commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the airline 
ticket distribution system. Among airline

[[Page 15874]]

consumers there is a growing concern that the airlines may be using 
their market power to unfairly limit how airline tickets are 
distributed.
  Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive 
component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed 
service and without, the consumer is the loser.
  The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate 
method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source 
of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents 
handled only about 40 percent of the airline ticket distribution 
system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system 
created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling 
nearly 90 percent of transactions.
  Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to 
the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the 
demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of 
deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the 
ticket distribution system.
  Travel agents and other independent distributors comprise a 
considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. 
There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women 
or minorities own over 50 percent of travel agencies.
  The assault on travel agents has been fierce. Since 1995, commissions 
have been reduced by 30 percent, 14 percent for domestic travel alone 
in 1998. Since 1995, travel agent commissions have been reduced from an 
average of 10.8 percent to 6.9 percent in 1998. Travel agencies are 
failing in record numbers.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to study this issue as well as 
the related issues of the current state of ticket distribution 
channels, the importance of an independent system on small, regional, 
start-up carriers, and the role of the Internet.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 1363. A bill for the relief of Valdas Adamkus, President of the 
Republic of Lithuania; to the Committee on Finance.


    private relief legislation for his excellency valdas adamkus of 
                               lithuania

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today on 
behalf of the current President of Lithuania, His Excellency Valdas 
Adamkus. President Adamkus is a Lithuanian native and a former U.S. 
citizen with more than a quarter century of distinguished service to 
our nation. His election last year to the Lithuanian presidency made 
necessary his renunciation of his U.S. citizenship. My legislation 
provides an exemption for President Adamkus from several consequences 
associated with his renunciation. More specifically, my bill exempts 
President Adamkus from any expatriate taxes, restores President 
Adamkus' Social Security benefits, ensures his right to his federal 
pension, and grants President Adamkus the right to travel freely 
throughout the United States.
  Valdas Adamkus was born on November 3, 1928 in Kaunas, Lithuania. 
Before immigrating to the United States in 1949, he was involved with 
Lithuanian resistance efforts against both Nazi Germany and Soviet 
Russian invaders. Settling in Chicago, President Adamkus remained 
active in Lithuanian Emigre organizations and helped raise public 
awareness of Lithuania's occupation by the Soviet Union. Following the 
return of independence to the Baltics, President Adamkus served as a 
Coordinator for the United States Aid to the Baltic States, 
specializing in environmental issues and academic coordination.
  President Adamkus is a graduate of the Illinois Institute of 
Technology, where he earned a B.S. in civil engineering before spending 
ten years as a consulting engineer. In 1970, President Adamkus joined 
the newly-created United States Environmental Protection Agency where 
he initially served as the Deputy Regional Administrator of the fifth 
region--which includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio. 
In 1981, President Adamkus was promoted to Regional Administrator for 
the fifth region, a position he held until his retirement in 1997.
  In a distinguished EPA career which stretched 27 years, President 
Adamkus held a number of leadership positions, including Chairman of 
the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Chairman of the United States 
group that worked with the Soviet Union on water pollution issues. In 
1975, he was appointed Advisor to the UN World Health Organization and 
represented the EPA on environmental issues in the Soviet Union, 
Eastern Europe, Japan, and China.
  In 1985, President Reagan personally presented President Adamkus with 
the Executive Presidential Rank Award--the highest honor for a civil 
servant. Other honors he earned include the EPA's highest award, the 
gold medal for exceptional service, and the EPA's first Fitzhugh Green 
Award in 1988 for outstanding contributions to environmental protection 
internationally.
  To President Adamkus, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 
1980s and subsequent liberation of the Baltics marked the successful 
culmination of his lifelong commitment to Lithuania's freedom. As 
Lithuania began the long and painful transition from a communist 
totalitarian system to a free-market economy, Mr. Adamkus emerged as an 
ideal candidate for the Lithuanian presidency, not only because of his 
past work for Lithuanian freedom, but also because of the experience he 
gained through his career as a U.S. civil servant.
  Mr. Adamkus was elected President of the Republic of Lithuania on 
January 4 of last year and took office on February 25. Before assuming 
the Lithuanian presidency, Mr. Adamkus was required to renounce his 
U.S. citizenship. As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, the 
bill I am offering today provides a limited exemption for President 
Adamkus from some of the negative consequences associated with 
renunciation. More specifically, my bill:
  (1) Exempts President Adamkus from the expatriate tax. As an 
expatriate, President Adamkus is subject to sections 877 and 2107 of 
the Internal Revenue Code, provided it is determined that his 
renunciation had ``for one of its principal purposes the avoidance of 
taxes.'' My bill exempts President Adamkus from sections 877 and 2107 
by stating that his renunciation shall not ``be treated as having as 
one of its purposes the avoidance of any Federal tax.''
  (2) Restores President Adamkus' Social Security benefits and ensures 
his right to his federal pension. Title 42 Section 402(t) of the US 
code denies Social Security benefits to non-citizens residing outside 
the United States. While Section 433 of that title allows our President 
to enter agreements with foreign countries which allow non-resident 
non-citizens to receive pension benefits based on periods of coverage 
in the United States, the U.S. currently has no such agreement with 
Lithuania. As a result, President Adamkus is not entitled to the Social 
Security benefits he earned from 37 years of work in the United States. 
My bill restores these benefits. My bill also ensures that Mr. Adamkus 
retains the federal pension he earned as an employee of the EPA.
  (3) Restores President Adamkus' right to travel in the United States. 
As a non-resident alien, Mr. Adamkus no longer has the right to travel 
freely in the U.S. My bill restores this privilege.
  Mr. President, with this bill, I do not suggest that we trivialize 
the act of renouncing one's U.S. citizenship. Renunciation of U.S. 
citizenship is an act of the highest gravity that should not be 
undertaken without fully considering its consequences. I believe it 
appropriate, however, that we provide President Adamkus with special 
treatment in light of his long and distinguished service to our nation, 
his lifelong commitment to freedom and democracy in Lithuania, and his 
reason for renunciation. Indeed, it is in the interest of the United 
States that developing countries--particularly the former Soviet 
Republics--succeed in establishing free-market democratic societies. 
Hence, even in renouncing his citizenship, President Adamkus continues 
to serve our nation admirably. I thank my colleagues for their 
consideration and urge them to join me in supporting this bill.

[[Page 15875]]

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

                                S. 1363

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the renunciation 
     of United States citizenship by Valdas Adamkus on February 
     25, 1998, in order to become the President of the Republic of 
     Lithuania shall not--
       (1) be treated under any Federal law as having as one of 
     its purposes the avoidance of any Federal tax,
       (2) result in the denial of any benefit under title II or 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act, or under title 5, United 
     States Code, or
       (3) result in any restriction on the right of Valdas 
     Adamkus to travel or be admitted to the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Voinovich, 
        Mr. Robb, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1364. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
increase public awareness regarding the benefits of lasting and stable 
marriages and community involvement in the promotion of marriage and 
fatherhood issues, to provide greater flexibility in the Welfare-to-
Work grant program for long-term welfare recipients and low income 
custodial and noncustodial parents, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                   responsible fatherhood act of 1999

 MR. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend 
Senator Domenici to introduce the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999.
  The irony in our nation's unprecedented economic prosperity is that 
many Americans still feel the country is on the wrong track--that there 
is a deterioration of values in our society. There seems to be a 
fraying of the social fabric and many indicators point to the increase 
in absentee fathers as the culprit.
  America's moms are true heroes in the lives of their children. While 
most fathers are heroic in their own right, many are not involved 
enough--too many are completely absent. Fathers can teach kids about 
respect, honor, duty and the values that make our communities strong. 
But there has been a troubling decline in the involvement of fathers in 
the lives of their children over the last 40 years--a decline that 
should worry us all.
  The number of kids living in households without fathers has tripled 
over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to more 
than 17 million today. The United States leads the world in fatherless 
families and too many kids spend their lives without any contact with 
their fathers. The consequences of this dramatic decrease in the 
involvement of fathers in the lives of their children are severe. When 
fathers are absent from their lives, children are: five times more 
likely to live in poverty, twice as likely to commit crime, more likely 
to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom, twice as likely to drop 
out of school, twice as likely to be abused, more likely to commit 
suicide, over twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, and more 
likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
  Community efforts have sprung up around the country to stem the 
rising tide of fatherless families and encourage responsible parenting. 
Today I am introducing the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 with 
Senators Domenici, Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu, Graham, Lugar, 
Voinovich, Robb, Breaux, Edwards, and Bingaman. This bill is a fiscally 
responsible approach that will provide support to states and 
communities to promote responsible fatherhood.
  Specifically, our bill would do three things. First it would raise 
awareness about the importance of responsible fatherhood by authorizing 
a public awareness campaign, designed by states and communities, to 
help change attitudes, particularly among young men, about the 
responsibilities that go with fathering a child. Second, our 
legislation creates a block grant program expanding responsible 
fatherhood promotion programs at the state and local level. The grants 
would be supplemented by funds and involvement from state and local 
government, civic, charitable, non-profit and faith-based 
organizations. Finally, the bill changes existing federal law to 
encourage a stronger connection between fathers and their children 
through increased child support to families and more available training 
through the Welfare-to-Work program for low-income fathers.
  Congress alone cannot solve this problem. However, I believe this 
bill represents an important first step toward reversing the rising 
tide of fatherlessness in this country. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important initiative.
 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I 
rise today with Senator Bayh to introduce the Responsible Fatherhood 
Act of 1999.
  Even on its best day the government can never be a replacement for a 
loving two parent family. As the father of eight I cherish the moments 
I have spent and will spend with my children because they are my best 
friends.
  But sadly, there is a growing trend among American children, they are 
growing up without the love and guidance of their fathers and in many 
cases these children are going years without seeing their fathers.
  This trend has taken a terrible toll on not only our children and 
families, but our nation as a whole. For instance in my home state of 
New Mexico over 24 percent of families do not have fathers present in 
the home.
  Nationally, the numbers are not any better; nearly 25 million 
children or 36 percent of all kids live without their biological father 
and since 1960 the number of children living without their father has 
jumped from 5 million to 17 million. Additionally, about 40 percent of 
these children have not seen their father in the last year.
  I cannot think of two more important issues facing our nation than 
the dual goal of promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood. I 
believe you could describe the role parents play in the lives of their 
children in the following way: providing love, guidance, and 
discipline; while at the same time teaching about respect, honor, duty 
and the values that make our nation so great.
  And while we all acknowledge the positive benefits of a two parent 
family these are more and more families where fathers simply are not 
present in the lives of their children. I would submit this is a 
tragedy because a child growing up without a father or a mother simply 
misses out on something very special.
  I recently came across a quotation that I think is appropriate: ``it 
is a wise father that knows his own child.'' However, the exact 
opposite is now occurring with a growing trend towards absentee 
fathers.
  The bill we are introducing today seeks to reverse this trend by 
providing states and communities with support for the dual goal of 
promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood.
  Specifically, the bill: authorizes a public awareness campaign to 
promote responsible fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of 
married two parent families.
  Additionally, our bill creates a responsible parenting block program 
to provide support for state and local governments, nonprofit, 
charitable and religious organizations' efforts to promote responsible 
fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of married two parent 
families at the state and local level.
  The final component of the bill changes existing Federal law to 
encourage a stronger connection between fathers and children through 
increased child support to families and more available training through 
the Welfare- to-Work program for low-income non-custodial fathers. 
There is one provision within this component I would like to 
specifically focus on and that is the State option to disregard child 
support collected for purposes of determining eligibility for, or 
amount of, TANF assistance.
  While it is the intent of this section to allow States to disregard 
certain child support collected that amount is

[[Page 15876]]

also limited only to cases where states have chosen to pass-through up 
to $75 of child support payments per month directly to the family and 
then only that $75 may be disregarded by states.
  In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues to lend their support 
to this important issue and Senator Bayh, I very much look forward to 
working with you on this exciting piece of legislation.
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our society is suffering from 
the deterioration of the married, two-parent family. According to a 
recent report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, ``The State 
of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,'' marriage 
rates are at a 40-year low and there are fewer social forces holding 
them together. As the number of marriages has declined, unwed births 
have dramatically grown. Unfortunately, the result is more and more 
children are being born into fragile families.
  As the report states, ``Marriage is a fundamental social institution 
. . . It is the `social glue' that reliably attaches fathers to 
children.'' Nearly 25 million children, more than 1 out of 3, live 
absent their biological father, and 17 million kids live without a 
father of any kind. Even more troubling, about 40 percent of the 
children living in fatherless households have not seen their fathers in 
at least a year, and 50 percent of children who do not live with their 
fathers have never stepped foot in their father's home.
  This growing problem of father absence is taking a terrible toll on 
those children, who are being denied the love, guidance, discipline, 
emotional nourishment and financial support that fathers usually 
provide.
  Parents act as a nurturing and stable foundation for children. They 
are a guiding force to which children readily open their arms. In a 
recent poll conducted by Nickelodeon and Time magazine, three-quarters 
of the children, ages six to 14, polled stated that they wished they 
could spend more time with their parents. In addition, kids 
consistently ranked parents at the very top of the list when asked to 
name the people they look up to.
  More than friends or teachers, parents shape their children's value 
systems. As dads disappear, the American family is becoming 
significantly weaker, as are the values we depend on families to 
transmit. In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of children 
are becoming significantly higher. Social science research repeatedly 
shows that children growing up without fathers are far more likely to 
live in poverty, to fail in school, experience behavioral and emotional 
problems, develop drug and alcohol problems, commit suicide, and 
experience physical abuse and neglect.
  We have seen the devastating results of this breakdown in our culture 
as the number of violent incidences among young males, in particular, 
rises. Statistics reveal that violent criminals are overwhelmingly 
males who grew up without fathers.
  Concerned citizens and grass-roots groups are paying attention to the 
statistics, and they are actively seeking solutions neighborhood by 
neighborhood across the nation. A shining example of this united effort 
is the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) which was formed to help 
raise awareness of the problem of father absence and its consequences 
and to mobilize a national response to it. To date, the NFI has made 
tremendous progress, working in communities across the country to set 
up educational programs and promote responsible fatherhood.
  There are limits to what we in government and here in Congress can do 
to change society's attitudes toward marriage and out-of-wedlock 
births, but we are not powerless. I am proud to sign on to the proposal 
introduced by my colleagues Senators Evan Bayh and Pete Domenici, ``The 
Resppnsible Fatherhood Act of 1999,'' that will help strengthen fragile 
families and promote responsible fatherhood, as well as promote the 
formation and maintenance of married, two-parent families.
  I would like to highlight a few key provisions that will 
significantly increase efforts at the state and local level to 
reconnect fathers and families, thereby ensuring a brighter, more 
secure future for our youth.
  Unfortunately, few television shows and movies produced today 
highlight the value of marriage. Cohabitation and out-of-wedlock sex 
are handled so casually that young people see little incentive for 
marriage. This bipartisan legislation authorizes a challenge grant to 
encourage states and local communities to initiate media campaigns that 
promote responsible fatherhood and the importance of a married, two-
parent family in a child's life. Rather than the typical barrage of 
negative images, young people need to see positive messages on 
fatherhood and marriage.
  States, localities and community organizations are already helping 
lead the fight at the local level for responsible fatherhood. Their 
efforts must be bolstered, not hindered. This proposal authorizes a 
Responsible Parenting Block Grant to provide support for state and 
local government, nonprofit, charitable and religious organizations' 
efforts.
  No one solution exists that will reconnect fathers and families, but 
a combined effort can make a difference. That is why a national 
clearinghouse would be established to facilitate the exchange of ideas 
and sharing of success stories. Such a clearinghouse also would produce 
and distribute resources to aid those leading the charge at the 
community level. The National Fatherhood Initiative has been 
highlighted as an exemplary group to house such a clearinghouse.
  Although many fathers desire to make a financial contribution to 
their family, they are unable to because they lack the necessary skills 
to obtain jobs. In 1997, Congress passed Welfare to Work legislation to 
help the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients and low-income, non-
custodial parents move into jobs. Unfortunately, many states have not 
been able to use their full funding because of restrictive federal 
guidelines. The Responsible Fatherhood Act will provide states and 
cities the flexibility they need to serve a broader group of low-
income, non-custodial fathers, and provide services to increase the 
employment and parenting skills of eligible fathers.
  Under the current system, fathers with children on welfare are 
discouraged from paying child support as payments are instead typically 
shifted to state agencies to offset welfare benefits. Research 
demonstrates that fathers are more connected with their children and 
more likely to pay child support when they believe their payment is 
going directly to their family, and not the government. Children on 
welfare are precisely the children who have been identified as group 
most in need of father involvement, and we should eliminate any 
barriers that prevent this critical bond from taking place. Therefore, 
this legislation would establish the federal government as a partner to 
states that want to exercise an option to pass-through up to $75 of 
child support payments per month directly to the family without 
impacting welfare eligibility.
  Implementing new innovative fatherhood initiatives should not be a 
rigorous, burdensome process. States should have the flexibility to use 
child-support funds on programs that support and promote fatherhood 
instead of paying funds back to TANF. Getting fathers back to work and 
reconnected to their families will do more to move families off of 
welfare permanently.
  The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999, I believe, marks a major 
turning point in the politics of the family as is evidenced by the 
solid bipartisan consensus coalescing behind this proposal. Promoting 
responsible fatherhood does not take away from the efforts of single 
mothers, but helps ensure that children receive the benefits provided 
by two caring parents. Addressing the critical role fathers play in the 
lives of their children is no longer a politically taboo topic. The 
research is convincing and, unfortunately, mounting every year--
children need the support and involvement of both parents to lead 
happy, healthy, productive lives.
  I thank Senators Bayh and Domenici for leading this effort. I am 
proud to join them as a cosponsor.

[[Page 15877]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
  S. 1365. A bill to amend the National Preservation Act of 1966 to 
extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund and the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   authorization for the historic preservation fund and the advisory 
                    council on historic preservation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I 
rise today to introduce legislation to extend the authorization for the 
Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a summary of the legislation, 
and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record 
for the information of my colleagues.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1365

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled,
       That the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 
     89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470) is amended--
       (1) in section 108 (16 U.S.C. 470h), by striking ``1997'' 
     and inserting ``2005''; and
       (2) in section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a)), by striking 
     ``2000'' in the last sentence and inserting ``2005''.
                                  ____


                                Summary

       This legislation amends the Historic Preservation Act of 
     1966 to extend the authorization of $150,000,000 per year for 
     the Historic Preservation Fund through fiscal year 2005 and 
     the authorization of $4,000,000 per year for the Advisory 
     Council on Historic Preservation. The fund is currently 
     authorized through fiscal year 1996, and the Council through 
     fiscal year 2000.
                                  ____

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 1999.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of a bill ``to 
     extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, 
     and for other purposes. Also enclosed is a section-by-section 
     analysis of the bill. We recommend that the bill be 
     introduced, referred to the appropriate committee for 
     consideration, and enacted.
       The enclosed bill would amend the Historic Preservation Act 
     of 1966 to extend the authorization of $150,000,000 for the 
     Historic Preservation Fund through the year 2005. The fund is 
     currently authorized at $150,000,000 per year through 1997. 
     In addition, the enclosed bill would amend the 1966 Act to 
     extend the current authorization of $4,000,000 for the 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through 2005. The 
     Counsel's authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 
     2000.
       The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for the 
     protection of significant historic properties across the 
     country. It encourages and supports America's effort to 
     preserve the tangible evidence of our past for the benefit 
     and enjoyment of future generations. As part of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act, Congress established the Historic 
     Preservation Fund to carry out the provisions of the bill.
       The purpose of this measure is to continue this successful 
     program of protecting historic structures and sites. For over 
     30 years, since the passage of the National Historic 
     Preservation Act, private citizens, industry, Federal, state, 
     local and tribal governments have worked together to create a 
     cost-effective, successful program. These unique partnerships 
     have resulted in the preservation of historic places, which 
     are the tangible embodiment of American history.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft 
     legislation from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely,

                                          Stephen C. Saunders,

                                    Acting Assistant Secretary for
                                      Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
  S. 1366. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
construct and operate a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic 
and Recreation River on land owned by the New York State, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreation River Legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I 
rise today to introduce legislation to construct and operate a visitor 
center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River on land 
owned by the State of New York, and for other purposes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis 
of the legislation, and the administration letter of transmittal be 
printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1366

       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 ``Upper Delaware Scenic and 
     Recreational River Mongaup Visitor Center Act of 1999.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (1) the Secretary of the Interior approved a management 
     plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, as 
     required by P.L. 95-625 (16 U.S.C. 1274 note), on September 
     29, 1987;
       (2) the river management plan called for the development of 
     a primary visitor contact facility located at the southern 
     end of the river corridor;
       (3) the river management plan determined that the visitor 
     center would be built and operated by the National Park 
     Service;
       (4) the Act which designated the Upper Delaware Scenic and 
     Recreational River and the approved river management plan 
     limits the Secretary of the Interior's authority to acquire 
     land within the boundary of the river corridor; and
       (5) the State of New York authorized on June 21, 1993, a 
     99-year lease between the New York State Department of 
     Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service for 
     the 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, 
     the preferred site for the visitor center.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF VISITOR CENTER FOR UPPER DELAWARE 
                   SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER.

       For the purpose of constructing and operating a visitor 
     center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River 
     and 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 Scenic and Recreational 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 a visitor center on land leased 
     under paragraph (a).

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
                                  ____


  Section-by-Section Analysis--Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 
                                 River

       Section 1. SHORT TITLE.--Provides a short title for the 
     Act--``Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Mongaup 
     Visitor Center Act of 1999.''
       Section 2. FINDINGS.--Provides a discussion regarding the 
     need for a visitor center at the Upper Delaware Scenic and 
     Recreational River including references in the enabling 
     legislation for the river and general management plan. Also 
     cites the State of New York's granting of permission of 
     construction and operation of the facility on state-owned 
     land.
       Section 3. AUTHORIZATION OF VISITOR CENTER.--Provides the 
     Secretary of the Interior the authority to enter into a lease 
     with the State of New York for a term of 99 years and 
     authorizes the Secretary to construct and operate a visitor 
     center on the leased property.
       Section 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--Authorizes 
     funds that may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 1999.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft bill ``To authorize 
     the Secretary of the Interior to construct and operate a 
     visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 
     River on land owned by the State of New York, and for other 
     purposes.'' We recommend the bill be introduced, referred to 
     the appropriate committee, and enacted.
       The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the 
     Interior to construct and operate a visitor center on state-
     owned land within the boundary of the Upper Delaware Scenic 
     and Recreational River. The Act which established the Upper 
     Delaware Scenic and Recreational River severely limited the 
     Secretary's authority to acquire land. The approved general 
     management plan for the river calls for the development of a 
     visitor

[[Page 15878]]

     center and determined that the best location for such a 
     center was at Mongaup near the confluence of the Mongaup and 
     Delaware Rivers.
       The preferred site is on property owned by the State of New 
     York and administered by the New York Department of 
     Environmental Conservation. The New York State Legislature 
     authorized the Department of Environmental Conservation to 
     enter into a lease with the National Park Service for the 
     construction and operation of a visitor center on the 
     preferred site.
       This legislation is necessary because the Secretary of the 
     Interior is not authorized to expend federal funds for the 
     construction and operation of a facility on non-federal land. 
     Passage of this legislation would provide the authority for 
     the Secretary to enter into a lease with the State of New 
     York and to subsequently develop a visitor center on the site 
     thus implementing a significant element of the Upper Delaware 
     Scenic and Recreational River's River Management Plan.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft 
     legislation from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely,

                                              Donald J. Barry,

                                      Assistant Secretary for Fish
                                           and Wildlife and Parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
  S. 1367. A bill to amend the Act which established the Saint-Gaudens 
Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire, by modifying the boundary 
and for other purposes.


                saint-gaudens historic site legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I 
rise today to introduce legislation to modify the boundaries of Saint-
Gaudens National Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis 
of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be 
printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1367

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled,
       The Act of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 749), which 
     established Saint Gaudens National Historic Site is amended:
       (1) in Section 3 by striking ``not to exceed sixty-four 
     acres of lands and interests therein'' and inserting ``215 
     acres of lands and buildings, or interests therein'';
       (2) in Section 6 by striking ``$2,677,000'' from the first 
     sentence and inserting ``$10,632,000''; and
       (3) in Section 6 by striking ``$80,000'' from the last 
     sentence and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
                                  ____


   Section-by-Section Analysis--Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site

       Amends the Act of August 31, 1964, which originally 
     established the historic site.
       Amendment (1).--Authorizes the Secretary to acquire 
     additional lands, up to 215 acres, which will be added to the 
     historic site.
       Amendment (2).--Increases the authorized development 
     ceiling for the site to $10,632,000, to allow for the 
     implementation of the approved general management plan.
       Amendment (3).--Increases the authorized land acquisition 
     ceiling for the site to $2 million, to allow for the 
     acquisition of the lands identified for expansion in the 
     general management plan.
                                  ____



                                   Department of the Interior,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 1999.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft bill ``to amend the 
     Act, which established the Saint-Gaudens National Historic 
     Site, in the State of New Hampshire, by modifying the 
     boundary and for other purposes.'' We recommend the bill be 
     introduced, referred to the appropriate committee, and 
     enacted.
       The purpose of the legislation is to authorize the 
     Secretary to expand the boundary at the site in response to 
     the recommendations of the general management plan completed 
     in 1996. The legislation would also increase the land 
     acquisition ceiling and the development ceiling for the site 
     so as to allow the acquisition of lands identified for 
     expansion in the general management plan and to address the 
     site development program outlined in the plan.
       The present boundary of Saint-Gaudens National Historic 
     Site includes approximately 150 acres. The majority of this 
     acreage is the historical zone of the historic site and 
     therefore unavailable for the development of visitor service 
     facilities, parking, administrative offices and facilities, 
     or new exhibition space. The enlarged boundary would allow 
     for the development of such facilities. The current natural 
     areas that are part of the site would be protected with the 
     addition of adjacent property and the viewshed from the 
     historic area would also be protected.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft 
     legislation from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely,

                                              Donald J. Barry,

                                      Assistant Secretary for Fish
                                           and Wildlife and Parks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 1368. A bill to amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
Planning Act of 1974 and related laws to strengthen the protection of 
native biodiversity and ban clearcutting on Federal land, and to 
designate certain Federal land as ancient forests, roadless areas, 
watershed protection areas, special areas, and Federal boundary areas 
where logging and other intrusive activities are prohibited; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the act to save america's forests

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Kerry and I are 
introducing the Act to Save America's Forests. When this country was 
founded over two hundred years ago, there were hundreds of millions of 
acres of virgin forest land across what is now the United States. 
Today, 95 percent of those original virgin forests have been cut down.
  Our Federal forests are unique and precious public assets. Large, 
unbroken forest watersheds provide high-quality water supplies for 
drinking, agriculture, industry, as well as habitat for recreational 
and commercial fisheries and other wildlife. The large scale 
destruction of natural forests threatens other industries such as 
tourism and fishing with job loss. As a legacy for the enjoyment, 
knowledge, and well-being of future generations, provisions must be 
made for the protection and perpetuation of America's forests.
  Clearcutting, even aged logging practices, and timber road 
construction have been the preferred management practices used on our 
Federal forests in recent years. These practices have caused widespread 
forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species 
extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality, 
diminishing commercial and sport fisheries, including salmon, and 
mudslides. Mudslides in Western forest regions during recent winter 
flooding have caused millions of dollars of environmental and property 
damage, and resulted in several deaths.
  An environmentally sustainable alternative to these practices is 
selection management: the selection system involves the removal of 
trees of different ages either singly or in small groups in order to 
preserve the biodiversity of the forest.
  Destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting on Federal lands 
was legalized by the passage of the National Forest Management Act of 
1976. From 1984 to 1991, an average of 243,000 acres were clearcut 
annually on Federal lands. During the same time period an average of 
only 33,000 acres were harvested using the protective selection 
management practices. Pro-clearcutting interpretations of forestry laws 
have also been used by Federal managers to promote even age logging and 
road construction. In addition, the laws are not effective in 
preserving our forests because in many cases judges do not allow 
citizens standing in court to ensure that the Forest Service or other 
agencies follow the environmental protections of the law.
  I am introducing this legislation to halt and reverse the effects of 
deforestation on Federal lands by ending the practice of clearcutting, 
while promoting environmentally compatible and economically sustainable 
selection management logging. It is important to note this legislation 
would only apply to Federal forests which are currently supplying less 
than 6 percent of America's timber consumption. According to a recent 
Congressional Research Service report we can reduce timber supply from 
the national forests and still meet our nation's timber needs. The vast 
majority of the 490 million acres of harvestable timber are

[[Page 15879]]

privately owned and unaffected by the bill.
  This legislation puts forward positive alternatives that will achieve 
two principal policies for our Federal forests. First, the Act would 
ban logging and road-building in remaining core areas of biodiversity 
throughout the Federal forest system including roadless areas, 
specially designated areas and 13 million acres of Northwest Ancient 
Forests. Second, in non-core areas it would abolish environmentally 
destructive forms of logging such as clearcutting and even aged 
logging.
  The Act requires selection management logging practices to be used. 
Therefore, timber companies would only be allowed to log a certain 
percentage of the forests over specified periods of time. Further it 
takes extra steps to protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting 
logging in buffer areas along streams, lakes, and wetlands. The Act 
would also call for an independent panel of scientists to develop a 
plan to restore and rejuvenate those forests and their ecosystems that 
are damaged from decades of these logging practices. And finally, the 
legislation would empower citizen involvement in insuring compliance 
with environmental protections of forest management laws by making 
certain that all citizens have standing to pursue actions in 
court.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes 
today in support of the Act to Save America's Forests. Over the past 
200 years, 95 percent of America's forests have been logged. The Act to 
Save America's Forests is an effort to save the remaining 5 percent of 
these original forests.
  The legislation is based on our best science and recognizes that we 
can preserve our national forests for future generations and still 
harvest the renewable resource of timber. It is supported by over 600 
scientists, who wrote to Congress that the act will ``give our nation's 
precious forest ecosystems the best chance for survival and recovery 
into the 21st century and beyond.''
  The truth is, this bill represents a prudent approach. It has been 
criticized by those who want to ban all logging on national lands and 
by those who feel that our current forest policy is too restrictive. I 
am optimistic that it will bring opposing sides together around common 
progress.
  The Act to Save America's Forests will protect some of the most 
treasured wild lands in America. Millions of Americans visit our 
national forests every year, generating more than $100 billion for 
local economies. In our forests, families hike, fish, boat, mountain 
climb, bird watch ad even dog sled. And, they act as watersheds and are 
home to rare species.
  In Oregon, our national forests have trees over 1,000 years old. The 
Sequoia National Forest in California is home to the world's oldest 
trees. These are true natural--and national--treasures.
  In New England, we have the Green Mountain and White Mountain 
National Forests. Only 100 miles from Boston, they are home to Mt. 
Washington, the Old Main of the Mountain and the Appalachian Trail. 
These are favorite spots for our citizens to back-pack, ski, canoe, 
kayak and witness the fall foliage.
  The remaining unbroken forests in the Green Mountain draw wildlife 
from great distances, such as migratory song birds from central and 
South America. The Lamb Brook, Glastenbury and Robert Frost Mountain 
forests, which are threatened with clearcut logging, are critical 
habitat for New England's black bear population, who needs these remote 
areas of solitude to breed and forage. The Act to Save America's 
Forests would permanently protect these forests and their biodiversity 
from logging or roadbuilding.
  Today, there are 490 million acres of harvestable timberlands in the 
United States. Only approximately 20 percent of this harvestable 
timberland, some 98 million acres, are owned by the Federal Government 
and would be impacted by the Act to Save America's Forests. The 
remaining 80 percent of the harvestable timberland is on private land, 
and would not be regulated by the Act to Save America's Forests.
  The major provisions of the Act to Save America's Forests will ban 
logging and road building of any kind in 13 million acres of ``core'' 
national forest. Core forests include ancient forest and biologically 
significant and roadless areas. Only environmentally compatible, 
sustainable logging would be permitted outside of the protected core 
forest areas. Clearcutting and even age logging would be banned on all 
federal lands. The Act will protect watersheds and fisheries by 
prohibiting logging within 300-foot buffer areas along streams and 
lakes. It directs the Federal agencies to protect and restore native 
biological diversity. Finally, it establishes a panel of scientists to 
provide guidance on Federal forest management.
  I want to thank Senator Torricelli for introducing this legislation 
and Representative Anna Eshoo for offering similar legislation in the 
House of Representatives. I strongly support this effort to balance our 
need to preserve and restore our national forests while allowing for 
the harvest of the renewable resource these forests provide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1369. A bill to enhance the benefits of the national electric 
system by encouraging and supporting State programs for renewable 
energy sources, universal electric service, affordable electric 
service, and energy conservation and efficiency, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                        Clean Energy Act of 1999

  Mr. Jeffords. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean 
Energy Act of 1999, for myself and Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, 
Schumer, Kerry, Lautenberg, Dodd, and Kennedy.
  Air pollution from dirty power plants threatens the health of lakes, 
forests, and people across our Nation. Today, we call for an end to 
code red air pollution alerts, smog filled afternoons and chemical 
induced haze. Today, we will introduce legislation to protect our 
environment from the damaging effects of air pollution and move our 
Nation closer to a sensible energy future.
  Why should we live with smog, acid rain and code red summer 
afternoons when the technology is here to capture the sun and wind in 
our backyard? It is time for our Nation to transition from smokestacks, 
coal power and smog to a future with windmills, solar power and blue 
skies. Like the wall in Berlin, we hope to watch the dirty power plants 
dismantled brick, by brick, knowing that once again we can breath 
freely.
  As the U.S. PIRG report indicates, air pollution produced from dirty 
power plants has skyrocketed. With recent wholesale deregulation, coal 
fired power plants increased their output almost 16%. This has got to 
end.
  Electric utility deregulation has the potential to save consumers 
millions of dollars in energy costs. At the same time, deregulation can 
move us away from reliance on dirty fossil fuels. A study by the Union 
of Concerned Scientists showed that we can decrease electricity prices 
by 13% while still achieving great public and environmental benefits.
  Electricity prices in the Northeast are double those in the Midwest. 
Under current law, old, dirty coal fired power plants in the Midwest 
are exempt from the same air quality standards that our plants meet. 
Their emissions settle into our streams, forests, eyes, and lungs. They 
get the benefit, we get the cost.
  Not anymore. Our bill will level the playing field for clean 
Northeast utility companies. It will knock dirty upwind coal burners 
out of the competitive arena. It will give our utilities the ability to 
compete successfully in deregulated markets.
  Our proposal will cap emissions from generation facilities, forcing 
old coal plants to meet tighter air quality standards or shut down. We 
attack pollutants that lead to smog, acid rain, mercury contamination 
and ground-level ozone.
  Our bill will put in place a nation-wide wires charge to create an 
electric

[[Page 15880]]

benefit fund to develop renewable energy sources and promote energy 
efficiency and universal access. It will mandate that generation 
facilities purchase increasing percentages of renewable power each 
year. We begin at 2.5% in 2000 and increase to 20% renewables by 2020. 
Either buy renewables, or don't play in the market place.
  Our legislation will make it cheaper and easier for consumers to 
install renewable energy sources in their homes, farms, and small 
businesses by simplifying the metering process. And finally, our bill 
has a comprehensive disclosure provision, giving consumers honest and 
verifiable information regarding their energy choices.
  Our Nation's future depends on clean, reliable energy. We can end 
dirty air from tall utility smokestacks. We can capture the global 
market for renewable energy. We can stop acid rain from killing our 
forests and we can keep our summer days from being ozone days. We can 
increase our energy security. And we can do all this while saving 
consumers millions of dollars on their utility bills.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont to introduce the Clean Energy Act 
of 1999. This landmark legislation provides a comprehensive, long-term 
blueprint for fulfilling the promise of fishable rivers, swimable 
streams, and clean, breathable air as envisioned by the ground-breaking 
Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
  As Senator Jeffords has explained, the Clean Energy Act would reduce 
emissions of the full range of pollutants that damage human health and 
the global environment. The public health standards embodied in this 
bill are ambitious. But they reflect the significant strides 
Northeastern utilities have made in recent years to reduce pollution 
from electric power plants. They also reflect the reality that goals 
can, and must, be achieved regionally and nationally if we are to 
ensure clean air and clean water for every community.
  As utilities invest in control technologies to help them meet 
existing and future clean air requirements, they face difficult 
choices. Some technologies control for one pollutant, while 
exacerbating emissions of another and often utilities make large 
capital investments without knowing what pollutant reductions may be 
required of them in the future. The Clean Energy Act will bring order 
to the equation by providing a comprehensive but flexible guide for 
controlling the full range of pollutants associated with electricity 
generation, including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury, and 
carbon.
  The Clean Energy Act will help reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides 
that lead to smog that makes it difficult for children, asthmatics, and 
the elderly to breathe. It will help reduce acid rain by reducing the 
amount of sulphur that our smokestacks pump into the air.
  The bill will accelerate efforts to make the fish in rivers safe to 
eat by lowering the amount of mercury introduced into the food chain. 
And it will help reduce the U.S. contribution to the problem of climate 
change by recognizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant of the global 
atmosphere.
  Last year, I introduced a bill designed to close a loophole in the 
Clean Air Act that exempts older power plants from rigorous 
environmental standards. We know that to ensure fairness in an era of 
increasing competitiveness, we must strengthen pollution controls so 
that dirty power plants don't gain an unfair share of the market while 
polluting at higher rates than cleaner, more efficient utilities. The 
Clean Energy Act builds on the effort begun last year, by requiring all 
plants, no matter what their vintage, to meet the same standards.
  Electricity deregulation carries the promise of enormous benefits for 
the consumer--mainly in reduced electric bills--which I strongly 
support. But electricity deregulation can also cause adverse 
environmental and public health consequences if we don't do it right.
  The principles behind the Clean Energy Act--comprehensive control of 
pollutants and equitable across-the-board standards, enhanced by 
emissions trading--provide a vision for how the electricity industry 
and our economy can grow even as we improve the quality of our air and 
water for generations to come.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks 
in support of the Clean Energy Act of 1999.
  There is a strong consensus in Congress, and throughout the nation, 
that it is time to restructure our electric utility industry. The 
driving force behind this consensus is the potential to save working 
families and businesses billions of dollars in their electricity bills 
as competition replaces regulated markets and drives down costs.
  The Clinton Administration has estimated that the nation may save as 
much as $20 billion through restructuring, and other estimates are even 
higher. Some twenty states, including Massachusetts, have already acted 
to bring competition to their state industry and capture these savings.
  In addition to saving billions of dollars, electric utility 
restructuring also presents us with the opportunity to enhance 
environmental protections. The Clean Energy Act of 1999 advances 
environmental goals that I believe should be considered as part of the 
final electric utility restructuring proposal passed by the Senate--and 
that is why I am an original cosponsor.
  I know that some in Congress have argued that we should not include 
environmental protections in a utility restructuring proposal. I think 
that would be a grave mistake, because some--by no means all--power 
plants are the source of too much pollution to be ignored.
  In Massachusetts, for example, five power plants release more than 90 
percent of the pollution from power plants in the state. If each of 
these plants met modern standards, it would reduce as much pollution as 
taking more than 750,000 cars off the road. And, while Massachusetts 
struggles with some of these dirty plants, many more can be found in 
the Midwest and other parts of the nation.
  The consequences of this pollution are significant. In the Northeast 
we experience frequent and widespread violations of national health 
standards for ozone. Long-term exposure to ozone may increase the 
incidence of respiratory disease and premature aging of the lungs. Acid 
deposition, whose source may be plants far outside of the Northeast, 
degrades public health and damages aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 
Mercury, which is highly poisonous, accumulates in aquatic species. 
Finally, carbon dioxide pollution continues to accumulate in the 
atmosphere and increase the potential for destructive and irreversible 
climate change.
  The Clean Energy Act of 1999 would put in place important public 
health and environmental policies. Most importantly, it would level the 
playing field by requiring old, heavily-polluting power plants that are 
now exempt from health and environmental standards, to clean up. This 
is important for New England, because while many of these plants are 
located in the Midwest, their pollution is carried through weather 
patterns to our air, forests, lakes, streams and lungs.
  We should close this loophole. Many energy companies have achieved 
environmental improvements, and those achievements should not be 
minimized, but the fact remains that electricity generation from old, 
heavily-polluting power plants increased 15.8 percent from 1992 to 
1998, nationwide.
  I want to add that I have heard from the citizens of Massachusetts 
who live around old coal and oil plants that pollute far more than 
newer plants. They feel strongly that all plants should comply with 
environmental standards and employ the best environmental technology, 
and that no family should be forced to live in the shadows of a plant 
that may cause environmental harm.
  In addition to having tougher standards and closing loopholes in 
current law, the Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency 
to review any plant that emits excessive pollution through pollution 
permit trading to determine whether it is causing adverse local 
environmental

[[Page 15881]]

and health impacts. As a result, the bill allows for robust trading so 
that we can capture all of its economic and broader environmental 
benefits, but only when it does not harm local communities.
  Finally, other provisions of the Act will benefit the environment and 
make the U.S. a leader in clean energy technologies. For example, it 
would require that a percentage of the Nation's power is generated by 
solar, wind and other renewable sources. For years we have given 
heavily-polluting plants a free ride. Now it is time to reverse course 
and create a market force to bolster our renewable energy technologies 
so that we will have a growing clean power industry as we start the 
21st Century.
  I thank Senator Jeffords for introducing the Clean Energy Act of 
1999, and I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, Schumer, 
Kennedy, Dodd, and Lautenberg as an original cosponsor. I hope this 
legislation will help shape the Senate debate over utility 
restructuring and ensure that provisions to protect the environment and 
the public health will be part of the final legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 1370. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the time for payment of the estate tax on certain timber stands; to the 
Committee on Finance.


           TIMBERLAND CONSERVATION AND TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I recently introduced legislation that 
would amend our estate taxation laws to correct a highly unjust 
situation that regularly occurs throughout our country. The problem I 
am referring to is the difficult situation persons who inherit valuable 
timberland often find themselves. Because the timberland is usually the 
major estate asset, the estate frequently lacks the liquidity to pay 
the hefty tax burden. Therefore, many times persons are forced to 
harvest the timber or even worse, to sell portions of the land, just to 
be able to meet this large tax liability.
  Besides essentially invalidating many testamentary gifts, such a tax 
policy creates numerous economic and ecological problems. As estate 
taxes are due nine months after a decedent's death, the current law 
strongly encourages persons to harvest the timber regardless of it's 
maturity, prevailing price or demand. Encouraging such behavior not 
only leads to economic waste, but also discourages responsible use of a 
valued natural resource. The decision of if and when to harvest 
timberlands should be made by the individual landowner after he has 
considered the current market, tree maturity and other relevant 
factors. It certainly should not be based on an uncompromising tax code 
that completely disregards these critical factors.
  Mr. President, the decision to sell the land is in no way a viable 
alternative to premature harvesting. Selling portions of a contiguous 
tract leads to fragmentation of the land, which in turn can lead to 
legal disputes and other inefficiencies. Furthermore, wildlife and 
forestry conservation efforts by earlier landowners are often ignored 
by new owners who look to exploit the land in order to turn a quick 
profit. But most importantly, our tax code should never place someone 
in a position where they must sell a testamentary gift just to be able 
to pay the taxes on the transfer. Besides being inherently unfair, such 
a tax tramples upon the property rights of American landowners.
  Mr. President, we must not allow the tax code to perpetuate these 
injustices. My bill, the Timberland Conservation and Tax Relief Act of 
1999 eliminates these problems by removing mechanical and unthinking 
tax laws from the decision of when it appropriate to harvest American 
timberlands. It introduces a flexible deferred payment provision into 
the estate taxation scheme that will allow timberland owners to 
exercise their own good judgment in deciding what the most efficient 
use of their land would be. Furthermore, the Timberland Conservation 
and Tax Relief Act promotes the responsible use of our environment by 
no longer placing persons in a position where they must harvest 
immature or unneeded timber. For these reasons, I strongly urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of 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. 1370

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF ESTATE TAX ON 
                   CERTAIN TIMBER STANDS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 62 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to extensions of time for 
     payment) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 6168. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF ESTATE TAX ON 
                   CERTAIN TIMBER STANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an interest in a 
     qualified timber property which is included in determining 
     the gross estate of a decedent who was (at the date of his 
     death) a citizen or resident of the United States, the 
     executor may elect to pay part or all of the tax imposed by 
     section 2001 on or before the date which is the earliest of--
       ``(1) the date the property is no longer qualified timber 
     property,
       ``(2) the date the individual who inherited the interest in 
     the qualified timber property either transfers the interest 
     or dies, or
       ``(3) the date which is 25 years after the date of death of 
     the decedent.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The maximum amount of tax which may be 
     paid under this subsection shall be an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to the tax imposed by section 2001 (reduced by the 
     credits against such tax) as--
       ``(1) the fair market value of the interest in the 
     qualified timber property, bears to
       ``(2) the adjusted gross estate of the decedent.
       ``(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Qualified timber property.--The term `qualified 
     timber property' means trees and any real property on which 
     such trees are growing which is--
       ``(A) located in the United States, and
       ``(B) used in timber operations (as defined in section 
     2032A(e)(13)(C)).
       ``(2) Adjusted gross estate.--The term, `adjusted gross 
     estate' means the value of the gross estate reduced by the 
     sum of the amounts allowable as a deduction under section 
     2053 or 2054. Such sum shall be determined on the basis of 
     the facts and circumstances in existence on the date 
     (including extensions) for filing the return of tax imposed 
     by section 2001 (or, if earlier, the date on which such 
     return is filed).
       ``(3) Certain transfers at death of heir disregarded.--
     Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to any transfer by reason 
     of death so long as such transfer is to a member of the 
     family (within the meaning of section 267(c)94)) of the 
     transferor in such transfer.
       ``(d) Election.--Any election under subsection (a) shall be 
     made not later than the time prescribed by section 6075(a) 
     for filing the return of tax imposed by section 2001 
     (including extensions thereof), and shall be made in such 
     manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe. If an 
     election under subsection (a) is made, the provisions of this 
     subtitle shall apply as though the Secretary were extending 
     the time for payment of the tax.
       ``(e) Time for Payment of Interest.--If the time for 
     payment of any amount of tax has been extended under this 
     section, interest payable under section 6601 on any unpaid 
     portion of such amount shall be paid at the time of the 
     payment of the tax.
       ``(f) Special Rule for Certain Direct Skips.--To the extent 
     that an interest in a qualified timber property is the 
     subject of a direct skip (within the meaning of section 
     2612(c)) occurring at the same time as and as a result of the 
     decedent's death, then for purposes of this section any tax 
     imposed by section 2601 on the transfer of such interest 
     shall be treated as if it were additional tax imposed by 
     section 2001.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to the application of this 
     section.
       ``(h) Cross References.--
       ``(1) Security.--For authority of the Secretary to require 
     security in the case of an extension under this section, see 
     section 6165.
       ``(2) Lien.--For special lien (in lieu of bond) in the case 
     of an extension under this section, see section 6324A.
       ``(3) Period of limitation.--For extension of the period of 
     limitation in the case of an extension under this section, 
     see section 6503(d).
       ``(4) Interest.--For provisions relating to interest on tax 
     payable under this section, see subsection (j) of section 
     6601.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 163(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``6166'' in the heading and the text and 
     inserting ``6166 or 6168''.
       (2) Section 2053(c)(1)(D) of such Code is amended--

[[Page 15882]]

       (A) by striking ``6166'' and inserting ``6166 or 6168'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``6166'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``6166 or 6168''.
       (3) The following provisions of such Code are amended by 
     striking ``or 6166'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``6166, or 6168'':
       (A) Section 2056A(b)(10)(A).
       (B) Section 2204(a).
       (C) Section 2204(b).
       (D) Section 6503(d).
       (4) Section 2011(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``or 6166'' and inserting ``, 6166, or 6168'':
       (5) The following provisions of such Code are amended by 
     inserting ``or 6168'' after ``6166'' each place it appears:
       (A) Section 2204(c).
       (B) Section 6601(j) (except the second sentence of 
     paragraph (1)).
       (C) Section 7481(d).
       (6) Section 6161(a)(2) of such Code is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end,
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the end,
       (C) in the matter following subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (B) or (C)'', and
       (ii) by inserting ``or payment'' after ``installment'', and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) any part of the payment determined under section 
     6168,''.
       (7) Section 6324A of such Code is amended--
       (A) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Application of Section to Deferred Tax Under Section 
     6168.--Rules similar to the rules of this section shall apply 
     to the amount of tax and interest deferred under section 6168 
     (determined as of the date prescribed by section 6151(a) for 
     payment of the tax imposed by chapter 11).'', and
       (B) in the title, by striking ``estate tax deferred under 
     section 6166'' and inserting ``deferred estate tax''.
       (8) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 62 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 6168. Extension of time for payment of estate tax on certain 
              timber stands.''.
       (9) The item relating to section 6324A in the table of 
     sections for subchapter C of chapter 64 of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``estate tax deferred under section 
     6166'' and inserting ``deferred estate tax''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________