[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16711-16724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1394. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of the U.S.S. New Jersey, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


              U.S.S. ``NEW JERSEY'' COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will assist with the financial costs of relocating the 
Battleship U.S.S. New Jersey to a place of honored retirement in her 
namesake state. After fifty-six years of service to our Nation, this 
proud ship is ready to serve America in a new and invaluable role as an 
educational museum and historic center.
  The U.S.S. New Jersey is believed to be the most decorated warship in 
the annals of the U.S. Navy, with sixteen battle stars and thirteen 
other ribbons and medals. She is one of the four battleships of the 
45,000 ton Iowa class, which are the largest, fastest and most powerful 
we ever built. Beyond her imposing size and physical characteristics 
though, the New Jersey has an unmatched record of service to her 
country.
  With the easing of world tensions, the battleship was decommissioned 
in February of 1991 and she now lays in reserve, ready, but destined 
never to sail again. In January 1995, the New Jersey was stricken by 
the Navy, meaning that she was available to become a museum. For 24 
years, the people of New Jersey have been organizing at the grass roots 
level to prepare for the eventual return to the ship.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing will authorize the 
Secretary of the Treasury to mint silver coins commemorating the U.S.S. 
New Jersey. Millions of dollars have already been raised through the 
purchase of Battleship License Plates, an annual Tax Check Off and 
contributions by many of New Jersey's leading civic and business 
organizations. The issuance of a U.S.S. New Jersey coin will add to 
these efforts and help commemorate this national treasure.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1394

       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 ``U.S.S. New Jersey 
     Commemorative Coin Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The U.S.S. New Jersey was launched December 7, 1942, 
     the start of nearly 50 years of dedicated service to our 
     Nation prior to final decommissioning in 1991.
       (2) After commissioning, the U.S.S. New Jersey was sent to 
     the Pacific, and played a key role in operations in the 
     Marshalls, Marianas, Carolines, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and 
     Okinawa, with a particular highlight being the U.S.S. New 
     Jersey's service as the flagship for Commander 3d Fleet, 
     Admiral William ``Bull'' Halsey, during the Battle of Leyte 
     Gulf in October 1944.
       (3) After the Allied victory in World War II, the U.S.S. 
     New Jersey was deactivated in 1948 until being called to 
     service for the second time, in November 1950.
       (4) The U.S.S. New Jersey served two tours in the Western 
     Pacific during the Korean War, serving as flagship for 
     Commander 7th Fleet.
       (5) After her valiant service during the Korean War, the 
     U.S.S. New Jersey was again mothballed in 1957, only to be 
     re-activated again in 1968 to serve as the only active-duty 
     Navy battleship.
       (6) The U.S.S. New Jersey served a successful tour during 
     the Vietnam conflict, providing critical major-caliber fire 
     support for friendly troops, before again being 
     decommissioned in December 1969.
       (7) The U.S.S. New Jersey's service to our country did not 
     end with the Vietnam conflict, as she was again called to 
     active duty status in December 1982 and provided a show of 
     strength off the coast of Nicaragua, in Central America in 
     1983.
       (8) The Navy again called upon the U.S.S. New Jersey to 
     provide critical support by sending her to the Mediterranean 
     in 1983 to provide critical fire support to Marines in 
     embattled Beirut, Lebanon.
       (9) The U.S.S. New Jersey continued to serve the Navy in a 
     variety of roles, including regular deployments in the 
     Western Pacific.
       (10) The U.S.S. New Jersey was decommissioned for the 
     fourth and final time in February 1991.
       (11) In 1998 Congress passed legislation to decommission 
     the U.S.S. New Jersey and permanently berth her in the State 
     of New Jersey.
       (12) The State has strongly endorsed bringing the U.S.S. 
     New Jersey home, and has issued commemorative license plates 
     and taken other steps to raise funds for the costs of 
     relocating the U.S.S. New Jersey.
       (13) The New Jersey congressional delegation is united in 
     its support for bringing the U.S.S. New Jersey home to New 
     Jersey.

     SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) Denomination.--In commemoration of the U.S.S. New 
     Jersey, the Secretary of the Treasury (hereafter in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall mint and issue not 
     more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of which shall--
       (1) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5136 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act 
     shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary may obtain silver for minting coins under 
     this Act from any available source, including stockpiles 
     established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock 
     Piling Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of service of the U.S.S. New Jersey.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--

[[Page 16712]]

       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2002''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (3) Obverse of coin.--The obverse of each coin minted under 
     this Act shall bear the likeness of the U.S.S. New Jersey.
       (4) General design.--In designing this coin, the Secretary 
     shall also consider incorporating appropriate elements from 
     the tenure of service of the U.S.S. New Jersey in the Navy.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be selected by the Secretary after consultation 
     with the Commission of Fine Arts and shall be reviewed by the 
     Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only one facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the 
     coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins 
     minted under this Act only during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 2002, and ending on December 31, 2002.

     SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Surcharges.--All sales of coins minted under this Act 
     shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, 
     United States Code, 10 percent of the proceeds from the 
     surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of coins 
     issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary 
     to the U.S.S. New Jersey Battleship Foundation in Middletown, 
     New Jersey, for activities associated with the costs of 
     moving the U.S.S. New Jersey and permanently berthing her in 
     her new location.
       (b) Audits.--The U.S.S. New Jersey Battleship Foundation 
     shall be subject to the audit requirements of section 
     5134(f)(2) of title 31, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1395. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to 
appear before certain congressional committees to present the annual 
Nation Trade Estimate; to the Committee on Finance.


                presentation of national trade estimate

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today requires 
that the United States Trade Representative, the USTR, appear before 
the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee in 
the House, on the day that the National Trade Estimates Report is 
released.
  USTR must deliver the NTE Report to the Committees. He or she must 
provide an analysis of the contents of the NTE Report. And they must 
outline the major actions that will result from the NTE findings or 
give the reasons for not taking action.
  The NTE is an important document. It is the major opportunity each 
year for the Administration to set out the key trade barriers we 
confront with our major trade partners.
  At present, our trade law requires merely that USTR report the NTE to 
the President, the Finance Committee and the appropriate committees in 
the House. The change I am proposing means that the NTE will be made 
public on Capitol Hill rather than at USTR. The U.S. Trade 
Representative will present both its analysis of the trade barriers and 
its plan of action to deal with those barriers. That presentation will 
be made directly and immediately to the Congress. USTR should also 
explain what they have done over the past year to address trade 
barriers listed in the prior year's report.
  This is a small change, but an important symbolic one.
  The NTE should be the plan of action the Administration will pursue 
to dismantle foreign trade barriers. And USTR and the Administration 
must be accountable to the Congress for the results of this plan.
  During twenty-nine years of service in the United States Congress, I 
have watched a continuing transfer of authority and responsibility for 
trade policy from the Congress to the executive branch. The trend has 
been subtle, but clear and constant.
  I want to see this trend reversed. We in the Congress have a clear 
constitutional responsibility for trade. Article I of the Constitution 
reads: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with 
foreign nations.'' I want to use this constitutional authority to 
provide more effective and active congressional oversight of trade 
policy. And I would like to see more congressional direction for the 
executive branch in the area of trade policy.
  Again, this bill is a very small step in that direction. In the 
coming weeks and months, I will introduce further measures to ensure 
that the Congress implements fully its constitutional prerogatives on 
trade.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD:
  S. 1396. A bill to amend section 4532 of title 10, United States 
Code, to provide for the coverage and treatment of overhead costs of 
United States factories and arsenals when not making supplies for the 
Army, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


  legislation to provide coverage and treatment of overhead costs of 
 united states factories and arsenals when not making supplies for the 
                                  army

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my 
colleagues, Senators Durbin, Grassley, and Harkin, to introduce a bill 
to preserve the integrity of our arsenals and the vital role they play 
in our national security and defense.
  There are three arsenals remaining in this country charged with the 
responsibility of maintaining a military production capability in case 
of war. The Rock Island Arsenal in my home State of Illinois is one of 
those three national arsenals.
  The U.S. Government acquired Rock Island, which lies in the 
Mississippi River between Illinois and Iowa, in 1804. The first U.S. 
Army establishment on the island was Fort Armstrong in 1816. Neither 
Illinois nor Iowa had established statehood at that time, but Fort 
Armstrong served as a refuge for pioneers living on the frontier. In 
1862, Congress passed a law that established Rock Island Arsenal. 
Construction of the first manufacturing buildings began in 1866 and 
finished with the last stone shop in 1893.
  Today, Rock Island Arsenal is a leader in high-technology weapons 
production, engineering, and logistics and plays an integral role in 
our national defense, providing manufacturing, supply, and support 
services for our Nation's Armed Forces.
  I recently visited Rock Island Arsenal and was truly impressed with 
its facility and manufacturing capabilities and with its hard-working 
personnel. Manufacturing production at Rock Island centers around 
recoil mechanisms, gun mounts, artillery carriages, and the final 
assembly of Howitzers. Rock Island also serves as a ``job shop'' for 
the U.S. military, producing small quantities of urgently needed 
specialty items and performing work that is not profitable enough to be 
done in the private sector.
  Rock Island is the largest Government-owned manufacturing arsenal in 
the Western World with state-of-the-art machining, welding, forging, 
plating, foundry, and assembly facilities.
  Rock Island's specialty is artillery production, which it has done 
since the late 19th century, resulting in a long and distinguished 
history of efficient production and effective products.
  Rock Island has been very successful at producing towed artillery and 
has also been responsible for the production work on all U.S. Howitzers 
for the last 50 years. However, even with the state-of-the-art 
facilities, expertise, and proven track record of the arsenals, there 
are those who would like to see them closed and transfer all military 
production to private firms.

[[Page 16713]]

  Through those efforts, the arsenals have slowly but surely been 
marginalized through the years. Currently, Rock Island Arsenal is 
operated only at about 20 percent of its capacity. This approach does 
not save the Government money. It wastes it by making the Government 
pay twice for any product an arsenal can manufacture.
  Let me explain this point, because it is important to understand that 
our current policy does not save the taxpayers any money. Arsenals are 
currently kept open and on standby to gear up for production in the 
event of a national military emergency. Therefore, the Army must pay 
the overhead to keep them open whether or not the Army uses the 
arsenals to procure equipment and supplies. When a contract is awarded 
to a private firm, the Army is still paying for unused capacity at the 
arsenals, while at the same time paying the private contractor the cost 
of the contract. In effect, the taxpayers are paying twice for every 
product procured from a private contractor that could have been 
procured from an arsenal.
  The Army's procurement system hides these true costs from the public. 
The Army's bidding procedures do not allow procurement officers to 
evaluate arsenal bids fairly. Current bidding procedures require 
arsenals to include all of their full overhead costs, including the 
cost of unused capacity in the bid price for their products. This 
approach skews the true cost of the products produced by the arsenals. 
By requiring that arsenal bids include the cost of unused plant 
capacity--that is, those costs associated with the level of readiness 
the arsenals are already required to maintain--the Army has rendered 
arsenal bids inherently uncompetitive because the price of the product 
is artificially inflated beyond its true cost through the inclusion of 
overhead costs unrelated to the specific bid.
  This bookkeeping fiction makes the bid price for arsenal products 
uncompetitive, even if the actual price of an arsenal product can be 
acquired at the lowest cost to the Government. Thus, not only must the 
taxpayers pay twice for a product when it is not manufactured at an 
arsenal, but the taxpayer may not be buying the lowest priced product.
  The legislation I am interested in introducing today, Mr. President, 
with my colleagues from Illinois and Iowa, would require the Secretary 
of the Army to include in his annual budget request a line item to pay 
for the unutilized and underutilized plant capacity of the arsenals, 
thus recognizing the important role played by the arsenals in 
maintaining our defense preparedness. By requiring the Army to account 
for the overhead cost of unused arsenal capacity, the arsenals will no 
longer have to artificially inflate the cost of their bids to account 
for this overhead. Arsenals will be able to make competitive bids by 
virtue of not having to abide by the fiction of including as overhead 
for a bid the total cost of maintaining the arsenals. Instead, arsenals 
will be placed on a fairer footing with private firms by including in 
their bid price only the overhead cost associated with the particular 
product on which they are bidding.
  In the end, this approach will allow the Army to procure those 
products which arsenals are capable of manufacturing in the most cost-
effective way.
  Products manufactured by our national arsenals are among the best in 
the world, and the arsenals deserve fair treatment and consideration in 
the marketplace. In short, adoption of this legislation will enhance 
our national defense, save taxpayer dollars, and ensure the economic 
viability of the communities that surround our national arsenals, such 
as that in Rock Island, IL.
  Mr. President, I ask for favorable consideration of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 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. 1396

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

     SECTION 1. OVERHEAD COSTS OF UNITED STATES FACTORIES AND 
                   ARSENALS WHEN NOT MAKING SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMY.

       (a) Finding.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Factories and arsenals owned by the United States play 
     a vital role in the national defense by ensuring the making 
     of supplies for the Department of the Army.
       (2) The vital role of such factories and arsenals in the 
     national defense is not diminished by their unutilization or 
     underutilization in peacetime.
       (b) Overhead Costs of Factories and Arsenals When 
     Unutilized or Underutilized.--Section 4532 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Overhead Costs When Unutilized or Underutilized.--(1) 
     The Secretary shall submit to Congress each year, together 
     with the President's budget for the fiscal year beginning in 
     such year under section 1105(a) of title 31, an estimate of 
     the funds to be required in the fiscal year in order to cover 
     any overhead costs at factories and arsenals referred to in 
     subsection (a) that result from the unutilization or 
     underutilization of such factories and arsenals in the fiscal 
     year due to low production requirements of the Department of 
     the Army.
       ``(2) Funds appropriated to the Secretary for a fiscal year 
     for costs described in paragraph (1) shall be available to 
     the Secretary in such fiscal year to cover such costs.
       ``(3) In determining the cost of making a supply or other 
     good, other than a supply for the Department of the Army, at 
     a factory or arsenal referred to in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall not take into account any overhead cost 
     covered with funds available to the Secretary under paragraph 
     (2).''.
       (c) Stylistic Amendments.--That section is further 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Authority To Make 
     Supplies.--'' before ``The Secretary of the Army''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Abolition.--'' before 
     ``The Secretary''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 1397. A bill to provide for the retention of the name of the 
geologic formation known as ``Devils Tower'' at the Devils Tower 
National Monument in the State of Wyoming; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


            devils tower national park name preservation act

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will enable 
Devils Tower National Monument to retain its historic and traditional 
name.
  Wyoming is a state rich with heritage. We have cities and communities 
named after great explorers like John Charles Fremont, John Wessley 
Powell, and mountain man Jim Bridger. We have cities named after 
William F. ``Buffalo Bill'' Cody, Civil War Hero General Philip 
Sheridan and Army Fort Commander Caspar Collins. The state is also rich 
with names that recognize the contributions by Native Americans. Our 
state capital, Cheyenne, is joined with other areas named Shoshoni, 
Washakie, Arapahoe, Ten Sleep, Sundance and Shawnee. Wyoming also 
adopted many names that represent the unique geography that makes up 
our diverse state. For example, we have the Yellowstone, Riverton, Big 
Piney, Green River, Mountain View, Lonetree, and the Wind River Canyon.
  One such place, Devils Tower, was named in 1875 by a military survey 
team. You can imagine the impact on the group as it rode up to the 
tower more than 120 years ago. The gray volcanic tower sits on the 
plains of Northeastern Wyoming and shoots up, straight into the sky, 
for approximately one-quarter of a mile. Its rugged walls and round 
shape make it look something like a giant petrified tree stump. I live 
in the area and have visited the tower many times. I can attest that 
the name Devils Tower is clearly applicable.
  Along with Yellowstone National Park's Old Faithful, Devils Tower has 
become an icon of Wyoming and the West. This unique structure is known 
internationally as one of the premiere climbing locations in the world 
and therefore plays a vital role in the state's billion dollar tourism 
industry.
  I am, however, sensitive to the feelings of those Native Americans 
who would prefer to see the name of this natural wonder changed to 
something more acceptable to their cultural traditions. Many tribal 
members think of the monument as sacred. However, I believe little 
would be gained and

[[Page 16714]]

much would be lost should Devils Tower be renamed. Any name change for 
Devils Tower would dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between 
descendants of European settlers and the descendants of Native 
Americans and would place a heavy burden on the region's economic 
stability.
  My legislation will prevent such an impact and will embrace the least 
offensive option offered so far--the preservation of the traditional 
name of Devils Tower. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. 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. 1397

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 
     notwithstanding any other authority of law, the mountain 
     located 44 deg.42'58'' N., by 104 deg.35'32'' W., shall 
     continue to be named and referred to for all purposes as 
     Devils Tower.
      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 1398. A bill to clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


              coastal barrier resources system corrections

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation to 
correct errors in the Coastal Barrier Resource System maps which have 
resulted in the denial of federal flood insurance to a large number of 
coastal North Carolinians in Dare County, insurance for which they 
unquestionably should have been eligible.
  I've received many complaints from property owners about this 
situation, and last year I and members of North Carolina's House 
delegation asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the 
map of the ``otherwise protected area' overlaying the Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore was in fact accurate.'' (Property owners outside of 
the seashore were being denied flood insurance on the grounds that they 
were within the boundary of the ``otherwise protected area.'')
  Mr. President, the background regarding this Senate bill that I'm 
introducing today will explain the necessity of this bill's being 
offered:
  Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 
101-591; 104 Stat. 2931); within that act it established a 
classification in the System known as ``otherwise protected areas'' 
which consist of publicly or privately-owned lands on coastal barriers 
which were held for conservation purposes. While they were not made 
part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the Congress forbade the 
issuance of new flood insurance for structures within these areas. 
(Lands within the Coastal Barrier Resources System--undeveloped coastal 
barriers and associated areas--are denied any Federal development-
related assistance.)
  All of the ``otherwise protected areas'' are depicted on maps adopted 
by the Congress in the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. As needed, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers these maps, works 
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA) to determine 
precisely where the boundary of otherwise protected areas are located, 
so that FEMA may determine whether specific locations are eligible for 
flood insurance.
  After consulting extensively for more than a year with FEMA and the 
National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service has now advised us 
that the maps of the ``otherwise protected area,'' known as NC03P, are 
indeed inaccurate. The errors in the maps deny flood insurance to 
property owners adjacent to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in Dare 
County.
  The errors result from inaccurate depictions of the Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore boundary on the standardized maps upon which Congress 
designated this area, and in part because of the problems inherent in 
translating lines drawn on the large-scale maps used for designations 
into precise, on-the--ground property lines-a problem which neither the 
Congress nor the Interior Department appears to have considered when 
this was enacted in 1990.
  The fact that Congress designated the boundaries of coastal barrier 
units and ``otherwise protected areas'' by maps, the detection of an 
error in a depicted feature of the underlying map, or disparities 
between clear Congressional intent and the actual map, does not alter 
the enacted boundary of the unit or area. Only any act of Congress may 
revise such a boundary; the statute does not provide authority for an 
administrative correction of such an error.
  Although there is no statutory definition of, and little legislative 
history for, ``otherwise protected areas'', the areas so designated by 
Congress in 1990 were almost without exception depicted on maps 
transmitted by the Secretary in his January 1989 report to Congress 
pursuant to section 10 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. In 
developing the recommendations and maps for that Report, the Department 
utilized the following definition, which was published in the Federal 
Register (50 FR 8700):

       A coastal barrier or portion thereof is defined as 
     ``otherwise protected'' if it has been withdrawn from the 
     normal cycle of private development and dedicated for 
     conservation, wildlife management, public recreation or 
     scientific purposes. . . .

  This definition indicates that ``otherwise protected areas'' included 
only the conservation areas upon which they were based. In addition, 
the Administration has supported and Congress has enacted legislation 
in several instances where the stated purpose was to remove private 
property from the mapped outer boundary of an otherwise protected area.
  I am grateful for the cooperation of the Administration in this 
matter, I do regret that it look so long in this case.
  The fact remains that the mistakes which led to more than 230 
properties in Dare County being placed within the outer boundary of the 
``otherwise protected area'' was clearly not intended by Congress when 
the ``otherwise protected area'' was created.
  The bill I'm introducing today will correct these errors, Mr. 
President, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation promptly.
  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. 1398

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

     SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
                   MAPS.

       (a) In General.--The 7 maps described in subsection (b) are 
     replaced by 31 maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System, NC-03P'', designated as Cape Hatteras 5A through 5G, 
     and dated May 26, 1999.
       (b) Maps Described.--The maps described in this subsection 
     are the 7 maps that--
       (1) relate to the unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System entitled ``Cape Hatteras NC-03P'';
       (2) are designated as Cape Hatteras 5A through 5G; and
       (3) are included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, and 
     referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
       (c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 
     the maps that replace the maps described in subsection (b) on 
     file and available for inspection in accordance with section 
     4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3503(b)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy, 
        and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1399. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 
that pay adjustments for nurses and certain other health-care 
professionals employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs shall be 
made in the manner applicable to Federal employees generally and to 
revise the authority for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make 
further locality pay adjustments for those professionals; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                   va nurse appreciation act of 1999

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
address a little known but very important issue within the Department 
of

[[Page 16715]]

Veterans Affairs. The legislation would correct an injustice suffered 
throughout this decade by a workforce of 39,000 dedicated nurses who 
devote their careers toward the caring of our nation's veterans. Due to 
an unintentional use of federal law, the VA has allowed nurses to go up 
to five years in a row without a single raise. In some cases, VA nurses 
have received pay cuts by as much as eight percent in a single year, or 
received a token raise of one-tenth of one percent. I am today, along 
with Senators Dodd, Snowe, Landrieu, Reid, Boxer, Inouye, Sarbanes and 
Kennedy, calling on Congress to put an end to this practice by passing 
the VA Nurse Appreciation Act.
  We find ourselves in this situation because of unintended 
consequences. In 1990, Congress passed the Nurse Pay Act, which allowed 
VA medical center directors to give VA nurses higher annual pay raises 
than other federal employees on the General Schedule (GS). At the time, 
this well intentioned bill was needed to address a national nursing 
shortage in VA hospitals. However, after the shortage eased, many 
medical center directors used the discretion given to them by the law 
to provide minimal raises and even pay cuts. In my own state of Ohio, 
from 1996 to 1998, VA nurses in Columbus took a 2.8% pay cut, while 
federal employees in the same area received pay raises ranging from 
2.4% to 3%. This clearly was not what Congress had in mind when it 
passed the 1990 Nurse Pay Act.
  Unfortunately, the problem is widespread and knows no geographic 
boundaries. From 1996-1999, nurses at sixteen different VA medical 
centers had their pay rate cut by as much as eight percent, while other 
federal employees received annual GS increases ranging from 2.4% to 
3.6% or more. In addition, from 1996-1999, no raises were given to 
Grade I, II or III nurses at approximately 80 VA medical centers around 
the country.
  To address this wrong, the VA Nurse Appreciation Act. This bill would 
ensure that Title 38 nurses would be eligible to receive the same 
annual GS increase plus locality pay provided to all other federal 
employees in their area. The bill would preserve the essential purpose 
of the 1990 Nurse Pay Act by giving the VA Secretary the discretion to 
increase pay, or delegate this authority to VA medial center directors 
if they have trouble recruiting or retaining quality nurses.
  Mr. President, what message are we sending to our veterans when we 
are not willing to pay the nurses that provide their daily care the 
same pay increases that every federal employee now receives. Congress 
should be dedicated to providing our veterans the best possible health 
services, and putting an emphasis on top quality nursing care is a 
right step in that direction. This bill would end the practice of 
discriminatory pay cuts by directors of VA medical facilities and 
provide the assurance of at least the GS raise received by all other 
federal employees. This bill is really about fairness. It would help 
those dedicated workers who have not been receiving regular pay raises 
for years. If we can pass this bill quickly, we can insure all VA 
nurses will receive a much-deserved pay raise in January 2000.
  This bill is companion legislation to H.R. 1216, introduced by my 
colleague and friend from Ohio, Congressman LaTourette. It has the 
support of the American Nurses Association (ANA), the American 
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation 
of Federal Employees (NFFE) along with various veterans groups, 
including the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America. The LaTourette bill has bipartisan support from more than 70 
House members, including 11 members of the House committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Congress now has the chance to right a wrong and show VA nurses that 
their compassion and dedication are appreciated. I urge my colleagues 
to support and cosponsor the VA Nurse Appreciation Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the VA Nurse Appreciation 
Act and letters in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1399

       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 ``Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Nurses Appreciation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REVISED AUTHORITY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF BASIC PAY FOR 
                   NURSES AND CERTAIN OTHER HEALTH-CARE 
                   PROFESSIONALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) Annual Adjustments under Title 5.--Section 7451 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g); and
       (2) by adding after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) The rates of basic pay for each grade in a covered 
     position shall (notwithstanding subsection (a)(3)(A)) be 
     adjusted annually by the same percentages as the rates of pay 
     under the General Schedule are adjusted pursuant to sections 
     5303 and 5304 of title 5. Adjustments under this subsection 
     shall be effective on the same date as the annual adjustments 
     made in accordance with such sections 5303 and 5304.''.
       (b) Revised Title 38 Locality Pay Authority.--Such section 
     is further amended by adding after subsection (d), as added 
     by subsection (a) of this section, the following new 
     subsection (e):
       ``(e)(1) Whenever after October 1, 2002, the Secretary 
     determines that the rates of basic pay in effect for a grade 
     of a covered position, as most recently adjusted under 
     subsection (d), at a given Department health-care facility 
     are inadequate to recruit or retain high-quality personnel in 
     that grade at that facility, the Secretary shall in 
     accordance with this subsection adjust the rates of basic pay 
     for that grade at that facility.
       ``(2) An adjustment in rates of basic pay for a grade under 
     this subsection shall be made by determining a minimum rate 
     of basic pay for the grade and then adjusting the other rates 
     of basic pay for the grade to conform to the requirements of 
     subsection (c).
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall determine a minimum rate of 
     basic pay for a grade for purposes of paragraph (2) so as to 
     achieve consistency between the rates of basic pay for the 
     grade at the facility concerned and the rates of compensation 
     in the Bureau of Labor Statistics labor market in which the 
     facility is located for non-Department health-care positions 
     requiring education, training, and experience that is 
     equivalent or similar to the education, training, and 
     experience required for Department personnel in the grade at 
     the facility.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall utilize the most current 
     industry-wage survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a 
     labor market in meeting the objective specified in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `rate of 
     compensation', with respect to health-care positions in non-
     Department health-care facilities, means the sum of--
       ``(i) the rate of pay for personnel in such positions; and
       ``(ii) any employee benefits (other than benefits similar 
     to benefits received by employees in the covered position 
     concerned) for those health-care positions to the extent that 
     such employee benefits are reasonably quantifiable.
       ``(4) An adjustment under this subsection may not reduce 
     any rate of basic pay.
       ``(5) An adjustment in rates of basic pay under this 
     subsection shall take effect on the first day of the first 
     pay period beginning after the date on which the adjustment 
     is made.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations providing 
     for the adjustment of rates of basic pay for employees in 
     covered positions in the Central and Regional Offices in 
     order to assure the recruitment and retention of high-quality 
     personnel in such positions in such offices. The regulations 
     shall provide for such adjustment in a manner similar to the 
     adjustment of rates of basic pay under this subsection.''.
       (c) Annual Adjustments in Increased Rates of Basic Pay.--
     Section 7455 of such title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and (d)'' and 
     inserting ``(d), and (e)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Whenever an annual adjustment in rates of basic pay 
     under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5 becomes effective on 
     or after the effective date of an increase in rates of basic 
     pay under this section, the rates of basic pay as so 
     increased under this section shall be adjusted in accordance 
     with appropriate conversion rules prescribed under section 
     5305(f) of title 5, effective as of the effective date of 
     such annual adjustment in rates of basic pay.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c)(1) of section 
     7451 of such title is amended by striking the third sentence.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 3. SAVINGS PROVISION.

       In the case of an employee of the Veterans Health 
     Administration who on the day before the effective date of 
     the amendment

[[Page 16716]]

     made by section 2(a) is receiving a rate of pay by reason of 
     the second sentence of section 7451(e) of title 38, United 
     States Code, as in effect on that day, the provisions of the 
     second and third sentences of that section, as in effect on 
     that day, shall continue to apply to that employee, 
     notwithstanding the amendment made by section 2(a).
                                  ____

         AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 1999.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Federation of 
     Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and the 600,000 federal 
     employees we represent, I am writing to urge you to become an 
     original co-sponsor of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Nurses Appreciation Act of 1999. This bipartisan bill will be 
     introduced by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Senator Chris 
     Dodd (D-CT).
       The bill corrects an incongruity in the pay system for 
     workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) which has 
     hurt nurses and other health care workers. For the last 
     decade, the roughly 39,000 DVA nurses who care for our ailing 
     veterans have been part of a unique, locality-based pay 
     system that gives hospital directors discretion over nurses 
     salaries. Unfortunately, this atypical discretion has been 
     used to freeze nurse pay, provide minuscule annual raises and 
     even cut pay rates by as much as 8% in a single year.
       The Department of Veterans Affairs Nurses Appreciation Act, 
     which is being introduced at the request of AFGE, will 
     rectify the longstanding abuse of DVA nurses. It will put a 
     permanent stop to wage freezes and negative pay adjustments. 
     It will guarantee that DVA nurses and other health care 
     employees receive the same general schedule (GS) increase 
     plus locality pay given to virtually all other federal 
     workers, including federal workers who work alongside our DVA 
     nurses. Should the DVA have problems recruiting or retaining 
     quality nurses in the future, the Secretary will have the 
     flexibility to increase pay if necessary.
       The primary purpose of this bill is to ensure that DVA 
     employees who have been denied annual pay increases will 
     start to be put on equal footing with their GS co-workers.
       Veterans service organizations such as the Disabled 
     American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America support passage of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Nurses Appreciation Act of 
     1999.
       Year after year, DVA nurses have lagged behind in pay 
     increases, as compared to their GS co-workers. For example, 
     in 1996, the average pay raise for nurses was 1.2 percent; 
     compared to the 2.4 percent average increase received by 
     their GS co-workers. In 1997, the average pay raise for 
     nurses was again 1.2 percent, compared to the 3.0 percent 
     average increase received by their GS co-workers. In 1998, 
     the average pay raise for nurses was 2.2 percent, compared to 
     the 2.9 percent average increase received by their GS co-
     workers. In 1999, the average pay raise for nurses was 3.0 
     percent, compared to the 3.6 percent average increase 
     received by their GS co-workers. From 1996 through 1999, DVA 
     nurses on average were denied a pay raise equal to 4.5 
     percent because of the current pay system for nurses.
       DVA nurses, like their co-workers, deserve praise and 
     respect for standing by our nation's veterans. As you may 
     recall during the government shutdown DVA nurses and their 
     co-workers took care of veterans without even knowing whether 
     they would get paid.
       Many DVA nurses could have pursued higher paying jobs in 
     the private sector. Instead, most have chosen to stay with 
     the DVA because they care deeply for our aging and ailing 
     veterans and are earnestly committed to their specialized and 
     patriotic work. In fact, most DVA nurses have dedicated their 
     entire careers to caring for veterans. The average DVA nurse 
     is a 47 year old female with 11 years of tenure.
       DVA nurses, like their co-workers, provide not only a vital 
     service for our nation's veterans, but honor veterans with 
     compassion, respect and professional care. I urge you to 
     demonstrate to these dedicated workers that their work is 
     valued and appreciated by becoming an original co-sponsor of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Appreciation Act. If 
     you have any questions about this bill, please contact Mike 
     Hall in Senator DeWine's office at 224-2315 or Dominic 
     DelPozzo in Senator Dodd's office at 224-2823 or Linda 
     Bennett in AFGE's Legislative Department at (202) 639-6413.
           Sincerely,
                                            Bobby L. Harnage, Sr.,
     National President.
                                  ____



                                  American Nurses Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1999.
     Hon. Steven C. LaTourette,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative LaTourette: The American Nurses 
     Association (ANA) is pleased to support H.R. 1216, the VA 
     Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999. While the Veterans Health 
     Administration (VHA) has made some effort to address the 
     implementation problems of the VA Nurse Locality Pay System, 
     more significant and immediate action must be taken to ensure 
     that VA registered nurses are appropriately paid for their 
     expert work.
       H.R. 1216 would allow for all Title 38 registered nurses, 
     employed within the VHA, to receive the same pay adjustment 
     provided all federal employees covered by the Federal 
     Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA). This pay adjustment 
     would include both the nationwide component and a locality 
     pay component. Passage of H.R. 1216 provides for this 
     adjustment without requiring that VA registered nurses be 
     placed on the General Schedule levels of one to fifteen.
       ANA strongly supports the provision that provides 
     additional authority, starting in 2002, to the Secretary of 
     the Veterans Administration to adjust the rates of basic pay. 
     This provision is necessary to ensure that the VA can 
     continue to adequately recruit and retain registered nurses. 
     The VA's inability to recruit and retain registered nurses 
     was one of the primary reasons for passage of the original VA 
     nurse locality pay bill. In the near future, nursing will 
     again be facing a tightening labor market and the VA must be 
     able to compete.
       ANA applauds your efforts to address this significant 
     problem and we stand ready to assist in anyway possible.
           Sincerely,
                                              Marjorie Vanderbilt,
                           Director, Federal Government Relations.

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator DeWine, in introducing the Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999. It 
will alter the Department of Veterans Affairs' regulations regarding 
compensation rates for nurses. Unfortunately, the current regulations 
have led to hardship for many of our nation's VA nurses.
  For example, from 1996 through 1999, nurses at 16 VA hospitals have 
seen their pay slashed by up to eight percent. Also, during those same 
years, nurses at 80 VA hospitals have not received a single raise. 
Meanwhile, other federal employees at all VA hospitals received the 
annual General Schedule increases of 2.4 percent to 3.6 percent. This 
nation cannot continue a policy of turning a blind eye to those who 
care for its sick and wounded veterans.
  The Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999 will correct this injustice which 
seems to be an unintended consequence of the Nurses Pay Act of 1990. 
That law was written when VA hospitals faced a shortage of qualified 
nurses, and it gave hospital directors wide discretion in setting pay 
rates for nurses in their hospitals. The law partially served its 
purpose because it allowed directors to increase nurses' pay rates if 
they were having difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified nurses. 
Those who wrote the law, however, could not have anticipated that the 
VA would take advantage of the fact that the law did not mandate any 
minimum annual increase each year. They could not have anticipated that 
the law would be used to freeze or even reduce nurses' pay rates.
  Over the past several years, a few factors emerged to create the 
inequity in VA nurses' compensation. First, the nurse shortage of a 
decade ago has subsided. Second, VA hospital directors and network 
directors have been granted more responsibility for their budgets. In 
other words, if hospital directors can save money by not providing an 
annual increase to nurses, then the directors can use that money for 
other purposes. Finally, to make matters worse, the funding that goes 
to these hospitals has been, in many cases, steady or decreasing over 
the past few years. I know, for example, that the two VA hospitals in 
Connecticut have not received a real funding increase in about three 
years. So the hospitals in Newington, West Haven, and in many other 
cities throughout the country must tighten their belts each year to 
absorb costs due to inflation.
  The pressure to save money has caused many hospital directors to 
forgo providing even the slightest annual increase to nurses. Yet, 
hospital budget pressures have absolutely no bearing on whether other 
federal employees--including other veterans hospital employees--receive 
their annual salary increases. Those increases are prescribed by the 
federal government. This legislation just says that nurses should be 
treated the same as the others. It says that nurses should not bear a 
disproportionate share of the burden caused by stagnant budgets at our 
VA hospitals.
  Apparently the VA believes that, in the absence of a nurse shortage, 
annual increases for nurses are unnecessary. But I do not subscribe to 
that reasoning. We should not wait for a crisis before we take action. 
If we get to the

[[Page 16717]]

point where some VA hospitals are unable to retain well-qualified 
nurses as a result of unbearably inadequate pay, we will have waited 
far too long and will have badly degraded services at our VA hospitals.
  Furthermore, this nation has benefitted from a robust economy over 
the last several years. That economy has given a boost to nearly every 
segment of society. Clearly, though, despite the immense value of their 
work, many VA nurses have been left behind. Valuable work on behalf of 
this nation deserves, at a minimum, adequate compensation. This bill 
will provide that compensation and enable us to do right by our VA 
hospital nurses.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1400. A bill to protect women's reproductive health and 
constitutional right to choice, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


           family planning and choice protection act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I entered the United States Senate in 
1993, women's rights were strong and secure. That year alone, we passed 
the Violence Against Women Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and 
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. We lifted the gag rule, 
which freed up doctors to tell their patients that abortion is a legal 
option.
  Things are quite different now. Since 1994, the tide has turned 
against women's rights, as there have been nearly 100 votes to restrict 
choice, and pro-choice forces have lost most of these votes.
  Congress recently blocked women in the military and military 
dependents from using their own funds to obtain an abortion at military 
facilities. The House of Representatives voted to make it a crime for 
any adult to help a teenager travel to another state to avoid her home 
state's restrictive parental consent laws, and the Senate voted to 
prohibit women who work for the federal government from accessing 
health plans that offer abortion services.
  At the same time, violence against clinics and health care workers is 
increasing. Last year, the Feminist Majority reported that nearly one 
out of four clinics faced severe anti-abortion violence including death 
threats, stalking, bomb threats, bombings, arson threats, arson, 
blockades, invasions, and chemical attacks.
  In my own state of California, there have been 29 recorded incidents 
of violence against clinics since 1984. The firebombing of a women's 
health care clinic on July 2 in Sacramento serves as a grim reminder 
that this violence continues.
  While there are many in the community and in Congress who have helped 
fight off assaults on women's health rights, playing defense is not 
enough. We need a positive agenda for women's health, choice and family 
planning if we hope to move the pendulum back the other way.
  The Family Planning and Choice Protection Act of 1999 sets out such 
an agenda. This comprehensive bill is pro-choice, pro-family planning, 
and pro- women's health. It will improve family planning programs and 
services; strengthen women's right to choose; expand access to 
contraceptive coverage; protect patients and employees at reproductive 
health care facilities; and give law enforcement the resources needed 
to protect women's legal rights.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 
to stand up for the women in their respective states who deserve to 
have their rights and health protected. I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1400

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family 
     Planning and Choice Protection Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                          TITLE I--PREVENTION

                      Subtitle A--Family Planning

Sec. 101. Family planning amendments.
Sec. 102. Freedom of full disclosure.

       Subtitle B--Prescription Equity and Contraceptive Coverage

Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Findings.
Sec. 113. Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
              1974.
Sec. 114. Amendments to the Public Health Service Act relating to the 
              group market.
Sec. 115. Amendment to the Public Health Service Act relating to the 
              individual market.
Sec. 116. FEHBP coverage.

                  Subtitle C--Emergency Contraceptives

Sec. 121. Emergency contraceptive education.

                      TITLE II--CHOICE PROTECTION

Sec. 201. Medicaid funding for abortion services.
Sec. 202. Clinic violence.
Sec. 203. Approval of RU-486.
Sec. 204. Freedom of choice.
Sec. 205. Fairness in insurance.
Sec. 206. Reproductive rights of women in the military.
Sec. 207. Repeal of certain State Child Health Insurance Program 
              limitations.
Sec. 208. Funding for certain services for women in prison.
Sec. 209. Funding for certain services for women in the District of 
              Columbia.
Sec. 210. Funding for certain services for women under the FEHBP.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Reproductive rights are central to the ability of women 
     to exercise full enjoyment of rights secured to women by 
     Federal and State law.
       (2) Abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since 1973 and has become part of mainstream medical practice 
     as is evidenced by the positions of medical institutions 
     including the American Medical Association, the American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 
     Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association, 
     and the American Public Health Association.
       (3) The availability of abortion services is diminishing 
     throughout the United States, as evidenced by--
       (A) the fact that 86 percent of counties in the United 
     States have no abortion provider; and
       (B) the fact that, between 1992 and 1996, the number of 
     abortion providers decreased by 14 percent.
       (4)(A) The Department of Health and Human Services and the 
     Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences 
     have contributed to the development of a report entitled 
     ``Healthy People 2000'', which urges that the rate of 
     unintended pregnancy in the United States be reduced by 
     nearly 50 percent by the year 2000.
       (B) Nearly 50 percent, or approximately 3,050,000, of all 
     pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended, 
     resulting in 1,370,000 abortions in the United States each 
     year.
       (C) The provision of family planning services, including 
     emergency contraception, is a cost-effective way of reducing 
     the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the 
     United States.

                          TITLE I--PREVENTION

                      Subtitle A--Family Planning

     SEC. 101. FAMILY PLANNING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1001(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) For the purpose of making grants and entering into 
     contracts under this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004.''.

     SEC. 102. FREEDOM OF FULL DISCLOSURE.

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

     ``SEC. 1107. INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF REPRODUCTIVE 
                   HEALTH CARE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `governmental authority' means any authority of the United 
     States.
       ``(b) General Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no governmental authority shall, in or 
     through any program or activity that is administered or 
     assisted by such authority and that provides health care 
     services or information, limit the right of any person to 
     provide, or the right of any person to receive, nonfraudulent 
     information about the availability of reproductive health 
     care services, including family planning, prenatal care, 
     adoption, and abortion services.''.

[[Page 16718]]



       Subtitle B--Prescription Equity and Contraceptive Coverage

     SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Equity in Prescription 
     Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 112. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, or one half of all 
     pregnancies, in this country are unintended;
       (2) contraceptive services are part of basic health care, 
     allowing families to both adequately space desired 
     pregnancies and avoid unintended pregnancy;
       (3) studies show that contraceptives are cost effective: 
     for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 
     to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-
     related costs;
       (4) by reducing rates of unintended pregnancy, 
     contraceptives help reduce the need for abortion;
       (5) unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of infant 
     mortality, low-birth weight, and maternal morbidity, and 
     threaten the economic viability of families;
       (6) the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality 
     determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 
     percent if all women not desiring pregnancy used 
     contraception'';
       (7) most women in the United States, including three-
     quarters of women of childbearing age, rely on some form of 
     private insurance (through their own employer, a family 
     member's employer, or the individual market) to defray their 
     medical expenses;
       (8) the vast majority of private insurers cover 
     prescription drugs, but many exclude coverage for 
     prescription contraceptives;
       (9) private insurance provides extremely limited coverage 
     of contraceptives: half of traditional indemnity plans and 
     preferred provider organizations, 20 percent of point-of-
     service networks, and 7 percent of health maintenance 
     organizations cover no contraceptive methods other than 
     sterilization;
       (10) women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more than 
     men on out-of-pocket health care costs, with contraceptives 
     and reproductive health care services accounting for much of 
     the difference;
       (11) the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance 
     places many effective forms of contraceptives beyond the 
     financial reach of many women, leading to unintended 
     pregnancies;
       (12) the Institute of Medicine Committee on Unintended 
     Pregnancy recommended that ``financial barriers to 
     contraception be reduced by increasing the proportion of all 
     health insurance policies that cover contraceptive services 
     and supplies'';
       (13) in 1998, Congress agreed to provide contraceptive 
     coverage to the 2,000,000 women of reproductive age who are 
     participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
     Program, the largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan 
     in the world; and
       (14) eight in 10 privately insured adults support 
     contraceptive coverage.

     SEC. 113. AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME 
                   SECURITY ACT OF 1974.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title 
     I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR 
                   CONTRACEPTIVES.

       ``(a) Requirements for Coverage.--A group health plan, and 
     a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage 
     in connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription 
     contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration, or generic equivalents approved as 
     substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such 
     plan provides benefits for other outpatient prescription 
     drugs or devices; or
       ``(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient 
     contraceptive services if such plan provides benefits for 
     other outpatient services provided by a health care 
     professional (referred to in this section as `outpatient 
     health care services').
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued 
     eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms 
     of the plan because of the individual's or enrollee's use or 
     potential use of items or services that are covered in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to a covered 
     individual to encourage such individual to accept less than 
     the minimum protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of a health care professional because such 
     professional prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     provided contraceptive services, described in subsection (a), 
     in accordance with this section; or
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to a 
     health care professional to induce such professional to 
     withhold from a covered individual contraceptive drugs or 
     devices, or contraceptive services, described in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) as preventing a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan from imposing 
     deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or 
     limitations in relation to--
       ``(i) benefits for contraceptive drugs under the plan, 
     except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or other cost-
     sharing or limitation for any such drug may not be greater 
     than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-sharing or 
     limitation for any outpatient prescription drug otherwise 
     covered under the plan;
       ``(ii) benefits for contraceptive devices under the plan, 
     except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or other cost-
     sharing or limitation for any such device may not be greater 
     than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-sharing or 
     limitation for any outpatient prescription device otherwise 
     covered under the plan; and
       ``(iii) benefits for outpatient contraceptive services 
     under the plan, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, 
     or other cost-sharing or limitation for any such service may 
     not be greater than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-
     sharing or limitation for any outpatient health care service 
     otherwise covered under the plan; and
       ``(B) as requiring a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan to cover experimental or 
     investigational contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational contraceptive services, 
     described in subsection (a), except to the extent that the 
     plan or issuer provides coverage for other experimental or 
     investigational outpatient prescription drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational outpatient health care 
     services.
       ``(2) Limitations.--As used in paragraph (1), the term 
     `limitation' includes--
       ``(A) in the case of a contraceptive drug or device, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     prescribe such drugs or devices, utilization review 
     provisions, and limits on the volume of prescription drugs or 
     devices that may be obtained on the basis of a single 
     consultation with a professional; or
       ``(B) in the case of an outpatient contraceptive service, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     provide such services, utilization review provisions, 
     requirements relating to second opinions prior to the 
     coverage of such services, and requirements relating to 
     preauthorizations prior to the coverage of such services.
       ``(d) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of 
     the requirements of this section shall be treated as a 
     material modification in the terms of the plan described in 
     section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such 
     requirements under the plan, except that the summary 
     description required to be provided under the last sentence 
     of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall 
     be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of 
     the first plan year in which such requirements apply.
       ``(e) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent 
     that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in 
     effect any standard or requirement that provides protections 
     for enrollees that are greater than the protections provided 
     under this section.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `outpatient 
     contraceptive services' means consultations, examinations, 
     procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient 
     basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods 
     (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended 
     pregnancy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 713 the following new item:

``Sec. 714. Standards relating to benefits for contraceptives.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 114. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT 
                   RELATING TO THE GROUP MARKET.

       (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2707. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR 
                   CONTRACEPTIVES.

       ``(a) Requirements for Coverage.--A group health plan, and 
     a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage 
     in connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription 
     contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration, or generic equivalents approved as 
     substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such 
     plan provides benefits for other outpatient prescription 
     drugs or devices; or
       ``(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient 
     contraceptive services if such plan provides benefits for 
     other outpatient services provided by a health care 
     professional

[[Page 16719]]

     (referred to in this section as `outpatient health care 
     services').
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued 
     eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms 
     of the plan because of the individual's or enrollee's use or 
     potential use of items or services that are covered in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to a covered 
     individual to encourage such individual to accept less than 
     the minimum protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of a health care professional because such 
     professional prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     provided contraceptive services, described in subsection (a), 
     in accordance with this section; or
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to a 
     health care professional to induce such professional to 
     withhold from covered individual contraceptive drugs or 
     devices, or contraceptive services, described in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) as preventing a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan from imposing 
     deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or 
     limitations in relation to--
       ``(i) benefits for contraceptive drugs under the plan, 
     except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or other cost-
     sharing or limitation for any such drug may not be greater 
     than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-sharing or 
     limitation for any outpatient prescription drug otherwise 
     covered under the plan;
       ``(ii) benefits for contraceptive devices under the plan, 
     except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or other cost-
     sharing or limitation for any such device may not be greater 
     than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-sharing or 
     limitation for any outpatient prescription device otherwise 
     covered under the plan; and
       ``(iii) benefits for outpatient contraceptive services 
     under the plan, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, 
     or other cost-sharing or limitation for any such service may 
     not be greater than such a deductible, coinsurance, or cost-
     sharing or limitation for any outpatient health care service 
     otherwise covered under the plan; and
       ``(B) as requiring a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan to cover experimental or 
     investigational contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational contraceptive services, 
     described in subsection (a), except to the extent that the 
     plan or issuer provides coverage for other experimental or 
     investigational outpatient prescription drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational outpatient health care 
     services.
       ``(2) Limitations.--As used in paragraph (1), the term 
     `limitation' includes--
       ``(A) in the case of a contraceptive drug or device, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     prescribe such drugs or devices, utilization review 
     provisions, and limits on the volume of prescription drugs or 
     devices that may be obtained on the basis of a single 
     consultation with a professional; or
       ``(B) in the case of an outpatient contraceptive service, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     provide such services, utilization review provisions, 
     requirements relating to second opinions prior to the 
     coverage of such services, and requirements relating to 
     preauthorizations prior to the coverage of such services.
       ``(d) Notice.--A group health plan under this part shall 
     comply with the notice requirement under section 714(d) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements of this section as if such 
     section applied to such plan.
       ``(e) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent 
     that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in 
     effect any standard or requirement that provides protections 
     for enrollees that are greater than the protections provided 
     under this section.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `outpatient 
     contraceptive services' means consultations, examinations, 
     procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient 
     basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods 
     (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended 
     pregnancy.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to group health plans for plan years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 115. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING 
                   TO THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET.

       (a) In General.--Part B of title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first subpart 3 (relating to other 
     requirements) as subpart 2; and
       (2) by adding at the end of subpart 2 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 2753. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR 
                   CONTRACEPTIVES.

       ``The provisions of section 2707 shall apply to health 
     insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in 
     the individual market in the same manner as they apply to 
     health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance 
     issuer in connection with a group health plan in the small or 
     large group market.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage 
     offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the 
     individual market on or after January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 116. FEHBP COVERAGE.

       (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be used to enter 
     into or renew a contract which includes a provision providing 
     prescription drug coverage unless the contract also includes 
     a provision for contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall apply to a 
     contract with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans--
       (A) SelectCare;
       (B) Personal CaresHMO;
       (C) Care Choices;
       (D) OSF Health Plans, Inc.;
       (E) Yellowstone Community Health Plan; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to 
     such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs.
       (c) Refusal to Prescribe.--In implementing this section, 
     any plan that enters into or renews a contract under this 
     section may not subject any individual to discrimination on 
     the basis that the individual refuses to prescribe 
     contraceptives because such activities would be contrary to 
     the individual's religious beliefs or moral convictions.

                  Subtitle C--Emergency Contraceptives

     SEC. 121. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE EDUCATION.

       (a) Definition.--In this section:
       (1) Emergency contraceptive.--The term ``emergency 
     contraceptive'' means a drug or device (as the terms are 
     defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) that is designed--
       (A) to be used after sexual relations; and
       (B) to prevent pregnancy, by preventing ovulation, 
     fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a 
     uterus.
       (2) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means anyone licensed or certified under State law 
     to provide health care services who is operating within the 
     scope of such license.
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       (b) Emergency Contraceptive Public Education Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control, shall develop and disseminate to the public 
     information on emergency contraceptives.
       (2) Development and dissemination.--The Secretary may 
     develop and disseminate the information directly or through 
     arrangements with nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, 
     institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, and clinics.
       (3) Information.--The information shall include, at a 
     minimum, information describing emergency contraceptives, and 
     explaining the use, effects, efficacy, and availability of 
     the contraceptives.
       (c) Emergency Contraceptive Information Program for Health 
     Care Providers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, shall develop and 
     disseminate to health care providers information on emergency 
     contraceptives.
       (2) Information.--The information shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       (A) information describing the use, effects, efficacy and 
     availability of the contraceptives;
       (B) a recommendation from the Secretary regarding the use 
     of the contraceptives in appropriate cases; and
       (C) information explaining how to obtain copies of the 
     information developed under subsection (b), for distribution 
     to the patients of the providers.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     the period consisting of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

                      TITLE II--CHOICE PROTECTION

     SEC. 201. MEDICAID FUNDING FOR ABORTION SERVICES.

       Sections 508 and 509 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) are repealed.

     SEC. 202. CLINIC VIOLENCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page 16720]]

       (1) Federal resources are necessary to ensure that women 
     have safe access to reproductive health facilities and that 
     health professionals can deliver services in a secure 
     environment free from violence and threats of force.
       (2) It is necessary and appropriate to use Federal 
     resources to combat the nationwide campaign of violence and 
     harassment against reproductive health centers.
       (3) The Congress should support further increasing Federal 
     resources to fully ensure the safety of health professionals, 
     center staff, and all women using reproductive health center 
     services and the family members of such persons.
       (b) National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care 
     Providers.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a task force to be known as the ``Task 
     Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers'' (referred 
     to in this subsection as the ``Task Force'').
       (2) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of at 
     least 1 individual to be appointed by the Attorney General 
     from each of the following:
       (A) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
       (B) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (C) The United States Marshal Service.
       (D) The United States Postal Service.
       (E) The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
       (F) The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
       (3) Powers and duties.--The Task Force shall--
       (A) coordinate investigative, prosecutorial and enforcement 
     efforts of Federal, State and local governments in cases 
     related to violence at reproductive health care facilities 
     and violence against health care providers;
       (B) under the direction of the Attorney General, conduct 
     security assessments for reproductive health care facilities; 
     and
       (C) provide training for local law enforcement to 
     appropriately address incidences of violence against 
     reproductive health care facilities and provide methodologies 
     for assessing risks and promoting security at reproductive 
     health care facilities.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry 
     out this subsection.
       (c) Grants for Clinic Security.--
       (1) In general.--The Office of Justice Programs within the 
     Department of Justice shall award grants to reproductive 
     health care facilities to enable such facilities to enhance 
     security and to purchase and install security devices.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 203. APPROVAL OF RU-486.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
       (1) ensure that a decision by the Food and Drug 
     Administration to approve the drug called Mifepristone or RU-
     486 shall be made only on the basis provided in law; and
       (2) assess initiatives by which the Department of Health 
     and Human Services can promote the testing, licensing, and 
     manufacturing in the United States of the drug or other 
     antiprogestins.

     SEC. 204. FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 
     U.S. 113 (1973) established constitutionally based limits on 
     the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to 
     choose to terminate a pregnancy. Under the strict scrutiny 
     standard enunciated in the Roe v. Wade decision, States were 
     required to demonstrate that laws restricting the right of a 
     woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy were the least 
     restrictive means available to achieve a compelling State 
     interest. Since 1992, the Supreme Court has no longer applied 
     the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing challenges to the 
     constitutionality of State laws restricting such rights.
       (2) As a result of modifications made by the Supreme Court 
     of the strict scrutiny standard enunciated in the Roe v. Wade 
     decision, certain States have restricted the right of women 
     to choose to terminate a pregnancy or to utilize some forms 
     of contraception, and the restrictions operate cumulatively 
     to--
       (A)(i) increase the number of illegal or medically less 
     safe abortions, often resulting in physical impairment, loss 
     of reproductive capacity, or death to the women involved;
       (ii) burden interstate and international commerce by 
     forcing women to travel from States in which legal barriers 
     render contraception or abortion unavailable or unsafe to 
     other States or foreign nations;
       (iii) interfere with freedom of travel between and among 
     the various States;
       (iv) burden the medical and economic resources of States 
     that continue to provide women with access to safe and legal 
     abortion; and
       (v) interfere with the ability of medical professionals to 
     provide health services;
       (B) obstruct access to and use of contraceptive and other 
     medical techniques that are part of interstate and 
     international commerce;
       (C) discriminate between women who are able to afford 
     interstate and international travel and women who are not, a 
     disproportionate number of whom belong to racial or ethnic 
     minorities; and
       (D) infringe on the ability of women to exercise full 
     enjoyment of rights secured to women by Federal and State 
     law, both statutory and constitutional.
       (3) Although Congress may not by legislation create 
     constitutional rights, Congress may, where authorized by a 
     constitutional provision enumerating the powers of Congress 
     and not prohibited by a constitutional provision, enact 
     legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of 
     legitimate national concern.
       (4) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution and under section 5 of the 14th 
     amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to 
     prohibit State interference with interstate commerce, 
     liberty, or equal protection of the laws.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish, 
     as a statutory matter, limitations on the power of a State to 
     restrict the freedom of a woman to terminate a pregnancy in 
     order to achieve the same limitations on State action as were 
     provided, as a constitutional matter, under the strict 
     scrutiny standard of review enunciated in the Roe v. Wade 
     decision.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the 
     United States.
       (d) General Authority.--A State--
       (1) may not restrict the freedom of a woman to choose 
     whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal 
     viability;
       (2) may restrict the freedom of a woman to choose whether 
     or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability unless 
     such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or 
     health of the woman; and
       (3) may impose requirements on the performance of abortion 
     procedures if such requirements are medically necessary to 
     protect the health of women undergoing such procedures.
       (e) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to--
       (1) prevent a State from promulgating regulations to 
     protect unwilling individuals or private health care 
     institutions from being required to participate in the 
     performance of abortions to which the individuals or 
     institutions are conscientiously opposed;
       (2) prevent a State from promulgating regulations to permit 
     the State to decline to pay for the performance of abortions; 
     or
       (3) prevent a State from promulgating regulations to 
     require a minor to involve a parent, guardian, or other 
     responsible adult before terminating a pregnancy;

     so long as such regulations meet constitutional standards.

     SEC. 205. FAIRNESS IN INSURANCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal law 
     shall be construed to prohibit a health plan from offering 
     coverage for the full range of reproductive health care 
     services, including abortion services.

     SEC. 206. REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or in a case in which the pregnancy involved is 
     the result of an act of rape or incest or the abortion 
     involved is medically necessary or appropriate'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Abortions in Facilities Overseas.--Subsection (a) 
     does not limit the performing of an abortion in a facility of 
     the uniformed services located outside the 48 contiguous 
     States of the United States if--
       ``(1) the cost of performing the abortion is fully paid 
     from a source or sources other than funds available to the 
     Department of Defense;
       ``(2) abortions are not prohibited by the laws of the 
     jurisdiction where the facility is located; and
       ``(3) the abortion would otherwise be permitted under the 
     laws applicable to the provision of health care to members 
     and former members of the uniformed services and their 
     dependents in such facility.''.

     SEC. 207. REPEAL OF CERTAIN STATE CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   PROGRAM LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2105(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, and any health'' and 
     all that follows through ``incest''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (7).
       (b) Child Health Assistance.--Section 2110(a)(16) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(a)(16)) is amended by 
     striking ``only if'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``services;''.

     SEC. 208. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN SERVICES FOR WOMEN IN PRISON.

       Sections 103 and 104 of title I of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) are 
     repealed.

[[Page 16721]]



     SEC. 209. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN SERVICES FOR WOMEN IN THE 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Section 131 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277) is repealed.

     SEC. 210. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN SERVICES FOR WOMEN UNDER THE 
                   FEHBP.

       Sections 509 and 510 of the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) are repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1401. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to promote 
the development and use of affordable crop insurance policies designed 
to meet the specific needs of producers of specialty crops, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                      Specialty Crop Insurance Act

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for 
the legislation being introduced today. I am proud to be a co-sponsor 
of the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of 1999 with my colleagues, 
Senators Graham, Mack, Boxer and Feinstein. The outcome of this 
legislative effort will have a profound effect on the economic health 
and well-being of specialty crop producers in my state of New Mexico, 
as well as for farmers across the country.
  Today's crop insurance program does not provide sufficient risk 
management protection to many specialty crop producers, leaving the 
growers vulnerable to risk. Specialty crops in New Mexico include 
chiles, pecans, lettuce, and pistachios. In fact, Dona Ana County ranks 
as the number one pecan-producing county in the nation according to a 
recent USDA census. And we produce 50% of the chiles used in the United 
States. However, at present, viable crop insurance policies which offer 
valid risk management protection are available for only a limited 
number of specialty crops. Many policies which are available fall short 
of reflecting the needs of producers. This means that the great 
majority of specialty crops farmers in this nation are without 
appropriate, adequate and affordable risk management protection. This 
legislation addresses the needs of those farmers who produce our fruits 
and vegetables, nuts, and greenhouse and nursery plants for affordable 
crop insurance policies.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, 
        and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1403. A bill to amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, 
to modify en banc procedures for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     ninth circuit court of appeals en banc procedures act of 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased to introduce the ``Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Procedures Act of 1999.''
  As the largest circuit in the country, the Ninth Circuit faces unique 
difficulties. While this size has certain advantages, including 
creating a uniform body of federal law along the Pacific Coast of the 
United States, it also creates organizational and procedural challenges 
which must be addressed for the court to do its job effectively. The 
bill I am introducing today requires organizational and procedural 
reforms which will help the court to meet these challenges.
  The United States Department of Justice, which is the most frequent 
litigant before the Ninth Circuit--participating in 40% of its cases--
has specifically identified reform of the en banc review process as 
critical to resolving the existing problems on the Ninth Circuit.
  ``From our perspective as litigants, the Ninth Circuit's shortcoming 
is traceable not principally to its large number of judges or 
geographical size, but rather to its failure effectively to address 
erroneous panel decisions in important cases . . . .''
  The ``Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Procedure Act'' will 
institute three major changes to Ninth Circuit court procedures: (1) it 
reduces the number of judges required to call for an en banc hearing; 
(2) it increases the size of en banc panels from 11 to a majority of 
the Circuit; and (3) it requires the establishment of a system of 
regional calendaring.
  First, this legislation would grant the Ninth Circuit a dispensation 
to lower the statutory requirement that a majority of the Circuit's 
active-service judges must vote affirmatively to rehear a case en banc. 
Instead, 40 percent of the judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit would be 
sufficient to request an en banc hearing.
  In recent years, too many en banc requests at the Ninth Circuit have 
been disregarded by the Court. In 1996, the Ninth Circuit voted on 25 
en banc requests by its judges, but only agreed to 12 en banc hearings. 
In 1997, the Ninth Circuit considered 39 en banc requests, but only 
held 19 hearings. In 1998, the Ninth Circuit entertained 45 en banc 
requests, but the Circuit only agreed to hold 16 en banc panels.
  The Supreme Court, our nation's highest and most venerated court, 
requires less than a majority of its members to consider a case. It is 
simply common sense that the Ninth Circuit should not have a higher 
burden for hearing a case en banc than the Supreme Court uses to grant 
certiorari.
  Lowering the bar to en banc hearings will enable the Ninth Circuit to 
resolve a greater percentage of conflicts before they reach the Supreme 
Court.
  A second provision of this legislation will increase the size of 
Ninth Circuit en banc panels from the current 11 judges to a majority 
of the Ninth Circuit. Except for the Ninth, the Fifth, and the Sixth 
circuits, all en banc panels sit as an entire court. Eleven judges 
selected from a 28 judge circuit are insufficient to give litigants or 
the general public confidence that an en banc decision reflects the 
views of the entire circuit. By increasing the size of the panels, the 
Ninth Circuit will have more judges to raise, identify, and resolve 
potential conflicts in controversial cases.
  Critics have also objected to the Ninth Circuit because of its 
geographical expanse, as it ranges from Hawaii to Alaska to Arizona. It 
is charged that judges unfamiliar with the history of a particular 
region often sit on panels that decide regional issues.
  The Federal courts are a national court, with a responsibility to 
apply a single, coherent Federal law across the states. The states of 
the Ninth Circuit have benefitted from this harmonizing influence. For 
example, the Ninth Circuit has created a consistent body of maritime 
law on the West Coast.
  At the same time, to address both the appearance of regional bias and 
any actual regional bias that does exist, this bill would require the 
Ninth Circuit to have geographical representation on its panels.
  The Ninth Circuit presently has three administrative units--a 
Northern, a Southern, and a Central unit. Under this legislation, at 
least one judge from the particular geographic unit would be assigned 
to cases arising in that unit. Thus, if an appeal was filed in Alaska, 
a judge from the Northern region would sit on the case. Similarly, if 
an appeal was filed in San Francisco, a Central region judge would sit 
on the case.
  To the degree that the Ninth Circuit has stepped outside the 
mainstream of jurisprudence, this legislation enacts reforms that will 
help corral stray decisions. I look forward to working with my fellow 
Senate and House colleagues in enacting this reform.
  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. 1403

       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 ``Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals En Banc Procedures Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. NINTH CIRCUIT EN BANC PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 46 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (c)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c) or (d)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

[[Page 16722]]

       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding the first sentence of subsection 
     (c), 40 percent or more of the circuit judges of the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals who are in regular active service 
     may order a hearing or rehearing before the court en banc for 
     such circuit.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding the second sentence of subsection (c) 
     or section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     appointment of additional district and circuit judges, and 
     for other purposes'', approved October 20, 1978 (28 U.S.C. 41 
     note; Public Law 95-486; 92 Stat. 1633) a majority of the 
     circuit judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who are 
     in regular active service shall be required to sit on a court 
     en banc for such circuit.
       ``(3) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shall be organized 
     in no less than 3 administrative units based on geographic 
     regions. Each panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     shall be assigned to an administrative unit. In any case or 
     controversy heard by any panel of an administrative unit of 
     the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, at least 1 judge of that 
     administrative unit shall be assigned to that panel.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 6 of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the appointment of 
     additional district and circuit judges, and for other 
     purposes'', approved October 20, 1978 (28 U.S.C. 41 note; 
     Public Law 95-486; 92 Stat. 1933) is amended by striking 
     ``Any court of appeals'' and inserting ``Subject to section 
     46(d)(2) of title 28, United States Code, any court of 
     appeals''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 1404. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
authorize expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund for the Woodrow 
Wilson Memorial Bridge Project for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   woodrow wilson bridge funding act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 1405. A bill to amend the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority 
Act of 1995 to provide an authorization of contract authority for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2007, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                  woodrow wilson bridge financing act

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce legislation today 
to provide additional federal funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. 
The legislation, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Funding Act, has been 
cosponsored by the other three Senators from this region, Senators 
Warner, Sarbanes and Mikulski. We have worked well as a team. And I 
thank Senator Warner, who will introduce corresponding legislation that 
authorizes the funding to go to the bridge project, which I am also 
pleased to cosponsor.
  These two bills complete the job that was started in the TEA-21 
legislation we passed last year. In that bill, the Administration 
agreed to support $900 million for the bridge. I commend my senior 
colleague for his tireless efforts to secure those funds. But even with 
the funding provided by TEA-21, the amount of funding available for the 
bridge fell $1 billion short of what is needed to build it.
  Since the passage of the highway bill, I have been pressing the 
Administration to recognize the federal obligation which is owed to 
this federally-owned bridge. During the past few months of fits and 
starts on this project, I have focused on funding as the most serious 
long-term threat to rebuilding the bridge. I've spoken to Secretary 
Slater, written letters to the Secretary and OMB Director Jack Lew, and 
my office has been in constant contact with the Department of 
Transportation urging a solution to our funding shortfall.
  So I was gratified when the Administration proposed a solution 
reflected in the bills we are introducing today. After receiving the 
Administration's proposed legislation and consulting with the entire 
regional delegation, from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the 
Potomac River, we decided to divide the legislation into two bills, 
which will be referred separately to the two committees with primary 
interest in the legislation. The bill I'm introducing allows direct 
payments from the Highway Trust Fund to be used to finish this project. 
It will be referred to the Finance Committee, on which I sit, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on that committee to move 
this legislation forward. Senator Warner's bill will be referred to the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, on which he sits.
  Together, these two bills will solve the remaining financing problem 
facing the Woodrow Wilson bridge. By securing Administration support in 
advance, we have already travelled a significant distance toward 
getting a bill that can be signed into law. And it is my hope we can 
move quickly in the Congress to fill this fiscal pothole.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two bills be printed 
consecutively in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1404

       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 ``Woodrow Wilson Memorial 
     Bridge Funding Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF TRUST FUND CODE.

       Section 9503(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``(except for expenditures provided for 
     under subparagraph (F))'' after ``2003'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) authorized to be paid out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     under the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 
     1995 (109 Stat. 627).''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``TEA 21 
     Restoration Act'' and inserting ``Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
     Financing Act of 1999''.
                                  ____


                                S. 1405

       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 ``Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
     Financing Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ADVANCE AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR THE 
                   WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE.

       (a) Federal Contribution.--Section 412(a)(1) of the Woodrow 
     Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 627; 
     112 Stat. 159) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2002, and'' and inserting ``2002,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and $150,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2007'' after ``2003''.
       (b) Limitation on Federal Contribution.--Section 412 of the 
     Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 (109 
     Stat. 627; 112 Stat. 159) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Limitation on Federal Contribution.--The total amount 
     made available from the Highway Trust Fund under this section 
     shall not exceed $1,500,000,000. Amounts from the Highway 
     Trust Fund for the Project in excess of $1,500,000,000 shall 
     be provided by the Capital Region jurisdictions.
       ``(e) Contributions by Capital Region Jurisdictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007, every $1 provided from the Highway Trust Fund under 
     this section shall be matched by at least $0.67 provided by 
     the Capital Region jurisdictions from amounts made available 
     to the jurisdictions under title 23, United States Code, or 
     from other sources available to the jurisdictions.
       ``(2) Allocation.--The Capital Region jurisdictions shall 
     allocate payment of the matching funds required under 
     paragraph (1) as the jurisdictions determine to be 
     appropriate.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today legislation to 
complete the commitment to finance the federal share of the cost of 
constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge.
  As my colleagues are aware, this 40-year-old bridge which links 
Interstate 495 between Maryland and Virginia, is owned by the federal 
government. For over a decade, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, 
the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and affected local 
governments have conducted an extensive public process to select a 
design for a replacement facility for the Wilson bridge.
  The Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement selected

[[Page 16723]]

an alternative for a 12-lane bridge, of which 10 lanes are for all 
traffic and 2 lanes are dedicated for HOV.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, provides 
$900 million for planning, engineering, design and construction from 
1998 through 2003 for this design. This funding level represents 
approximately half of the estimated total project cost of $1.9 billion.
  The legislation I am introducing today, along with my Senate 
colleagues, Senator Robb, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski, 
provides the final installment of federal funds for the project. Also, 
this legislation has been reviewed by the Administration and it 
compliments the legislation requested by the Administration earlier 
this month.
  Specifically, the bill provides a total of $600 million from the 
Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 2004 through 2007, at an annual 
funding level of $150 million. Our bill adds a requirement not present 
in the Administration's bill that Maryland, Virginia and the District 
of Columbia must provide $400 million before any of the funds can be 
obligated.
  The requirement for matching funds from the capital region 
jurisdictions ensures that the total project cost of $1.9 billion is 
fully financed. Also, this matching provision responds to a major issue 
that came before a federal court earlier this year. In that litigation, 
the court ruled that the project had not fully met the transportation 
conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. Conformity requires that 
sources of funding for transportation projects be identified and that 
state transportation plans for building transportation projects 
``conform'' with state implementation plans designed to meet air 
quality standards.
  Mr. President, the funding provided in this legislation also ensures 
that this project will receive the same financial treatment as other 
highway construction projects around the nation. Under TEA-21 and prior 
federal transportation laws, 20 percent of state funds are required to 
match 80 percent of federal dollars used on any highway construction 
project on the federal-aid system. This 80 percent federal/20 percent 
state requirement will now be applied to the Wilson bridge project when 
this legislation is enacted.
  Mr. President, now is the time to act on this legislation. The 
project is at a critical juncture as we work to meet the construction 
schedule. While the funds authorized in this bill will not be available 
until 2004 through 2007, full funding must be identified and committed 
now before any construction can begin. The current schedule is for 
construction to begin by the fall of 2000.
  Let me be clear to my colleagues that this legislation continues all 
of the requirements set for the capital region jurisdictions 
established in TEA-21. Specifically, Virginia, Maryland and the 
District of Columbia must develop a financial plan and enter into an 
agreement with the federal government to determine which jurisdiction 
will take title to the new bridge.
  Also, this legislation does not waive any federal environmental laws. 
Those issues are before federal court and efforts to resolve them are 
ongoing between the Federal Highway Administration and the plaintiffs.
  As it has been stated previously, the useful life of the current 
bridge is nearly expired. Daily traffic of over 175,000 vehicles per 
day is causing irreparable damage to the bridge structure. It is 
prohibitively expensive to continue spending scarce transportation 
dollars to repair the bridge when its projected lifespan is rapidly 
expiring. The Federal Highway Administration has confirmed that we can 
keep the bridge open to all traffic until about the year 2004, but 
those estimates can change overnight as monthly safety inspections 
reveal continuing damage.
  Today, we are introducing two bills in the Senate to accomplish this 
funding initiative because of the committee jurisdictional issues. As a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am sponsoring 
the bill to provide $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund beginning 
in 2004. My colleague, Senator Robb, as a member of the Finance 
Committee, will be introducing legislation to permit these Highway 
Trust Fund dollars to be obligated in 2004 and beyond. Current tax law 
limits the obligation of new Highway Trust Fund dollars beyond the 
current TEA-21 authorization period of 2003.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge Financing Act of 1999.
  The Woodrow Wilson bridge is the only federal bridge in the country. 
This bridge used to be a bridge over troubled water. Now it is a 
troubled bridge over the Potomac River. We need a new bridge--not only 
because of the significant increase in the volume of commuters, 
interstate travelers and trucks that use the bridge, but also for 
public safety. The construction of this bridge must be completed in a 
timely way.
  I support this legislation for two reasons. First, it provides the 
funding that we need to finish constructing the Woodrow Wilson bridge. 
Second, it makes the project compliant with the Clean Air Act as 
required by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  Specifically, this legislation provides the authorization for an 
additional $600 million for the bridge. This $600 million is in 
addition to the $900 million that has already been committed by the 
federal government. It will provide $150 million per year from 2004 to 
2007.
  The legislation also commits the surrounding states to contribute 
their fair share to the construction of the bridge. Since federal 
funding makes up 80% of the cost of the bridge, the Capitol Region 
jurisdictions are committed to providing the remaining 20%. In fact, 
the states have to provide at least $0.67 for every $1 provided from 
the Highway Trust fund. Together, the federal and state governments 
will be able to provide what we need to build the bridge.
  The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Financing Act of 1999 is an innovative, 
creative and resourceful response to what was once a big problem for 
the entire metropolitan area. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Robb, Warner and Mikulski, as an original co-sponsor of these 
two measures providing the additional financing necessary for the 
replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The proposed $600 million in 
new funding authorized in these measures, combined with the $900 
million already made available under the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century (TEA-21), will enable us to move ahead with 
constructing this vital link in our region's and nation's 
transportation system.
  Mr. President, everyone who commutes to work in the Washington 
Metropolitan area or who travels on Interstate 95 knows what a serious 
traffic and safety problem we have in the area of the Woodrow Wilson 
Bridge. The bridge is one of the worst bottlenecks on the interstate 
system. It is carrying traffic volumes far in excess of its designed 
capacity. Originally constructed in 1961 to carry 70,000 vehicles per 
day, the bridge now averages 176,000 vehicles daily. It is rapidly 
approaching the end of its service life. In fact in 1994, the Federal 
Highway Administration determined that due to the age of the facility, 
the structural deterioration and traffic demand, the existing bridge 
would not last much beyond 2004 even with additional repairs. The 
substandard condition of the bridge and resulting congestion means 
accidents-- at a rate of twice that for other segments of the Capital 
Beltway--and significant delays for commuters, interstate truckers, 
tourists, businesses and employers alike. With traffic volumes in the 
area projected to nearly double in the next 20 years, there has been a 
clear need to address this problem.
  In 1996, after many years of intensive study, the Wilson Bridge 
Coordination Committee, comprised of federal, state and local 
officials, recommended a 12-lane drawbridge and reconstructing 
approaches and adjacent interchanges as the preferred alternative for 
the replacement structure, at an estimated cost of $1.6 billion. Since 
then, there has been much discussion and debate

[[Page 16724]]

about the size and cost of the facility as well as how the new bridge 
would be paid for and I would like to make several points:
  First, the project is a federal responsibility. The bridge is owned 
by the Federal government. In fact, it is the only federally-owned 
bridge on the interstate system. Funding provided for it should be 
commensurate with the federal ownership of the bridge.
  Second, the replacement bridge must be built in accordance with the 
same standards as applied to bridges owned by state jurisdictions. Just 
replacing the existing structure is not an acceptable option because it 
would continue the current bottleneck at the bridge and because it 
would not meet the Federal Highway Administration's own guidelines 
which require states in building new structures to meet projected 
future carrying capacity needs. This means the replacement structure 
must be able to accommodate current as well as projected future traffic 
growth and that the related interchanges and approaches to the bridge 
should match the new bridge. It should also provide for pedestrian and 
bicycle access as well as accommodate future transit useage. What is 
needed is not a quick fix that we will have to revisit in several 
years, but a long term solution that will carry us well into the next 
century.
  Third, we should not lose sight of the fact that if a replacement is 
not undertaken in the very near future, it will be necessary to impose 
significant restrictions on the use of the existing bridge and this 
will have enormous economic and transportation related consequences 
throughout the entire region.
  Last year we took a significant step forward in replacing the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge by authorizing $900 million in new contract authority in 
TEA-21. The legislation which we are introducing today, when enacted, 
will help ensure that the federal responsibility to this bridge is met, 
and that it will meet the region's needs as we move into the next 
century.
  I want to commend Secretary Slater and his staff at the Department of 
Transportation for their support and assistance in developing this 
legislation and I urge my collegues to join me in supporting this 
measure.

                          ____________________