[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1878-1905]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 366. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         camino real de tierra adentro national historic trail

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de 
Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. Senator Domenici is once 
again a cosponsor of this legislation which enjoyed bipartisan support 
in both the Senate and in the House in the last Congress. I want to 
thank Senator Domenici for his continued support of this bill.
  While we passed this bill last year in the Senate, it appeared that 
there just wasn t enough time for the House to go through its process 
on the bill at the end of the 105th Congress. My hope is that we will 
be able to move this bill through the Senate quickly this year and that 
the House will pass it as well.
  While this legislation is important to my home state of New Mexico, 
it also contributes to the national dialogue on the history of this 
country and who we are as a people. In history classes across the 
country, children learn about the establishment of European settlements 
on the East Coast, and the east to west migration which occurred

[[Page 1879]]

under the banner of Manifest Destiny. However, the story of the 
northward exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish is 
often overlooked. This legislation recognizes this important chapter in 
American history.
  In the 16th century, building upon a network of trade routes used by 
the indigenous Pueblos along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers 
established a migration route into the interior of the continent which 
they called ``El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro'', the Royal Road of the 
Interior. In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists 
landed at Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish 
expedition which established the northern portion of El Camino Real 
which became the main route for communication and trade between the 
colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial 
capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, 
New Mexico.
  For the next 223 years, until 1821, El Camino Real facilitated the 
exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, 
and military occupation of the Spanish colonial borderlands. In the 
17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for months to 
cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to missions, 
mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. As with later Anglo 
settlers who travelled from St. Louis to California during the 1800s, 
the Spanish settlers faced very harsh conditions moving into what would 
become the American Southwest. On one section known as the Jornada del 
Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 90 miles without water, 
shelter, or firewood.
  The Spanish influence from those persevering colonists can still be 
seen today in the ethnic and cultural traditions of the southwestern 
United States.
  As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the 
diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the 
source of our dynamism and strength. The inclusion of this trail into 
the National Historic Trail system is an important step towards 
advancing our understanding of our rich cultural history.
  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. 366

       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 ``El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro National Historic Trail Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (the Royal Road of the 
     Interior), served as the primary route between the colonial 
     Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial 
     capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros (1598-1600), San 
     Gabriel (1600-1609) and then Santa Fe (1610-1821).
       (2) The portion of El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro that 
     resided in what is now the United States extended between El 
     Paso, Texas and present San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico, a 
     distance of 404 miles;
       (3) El Camino Real is a symbol of the cultural interaction 
     between nations and ethnic groups and of the commercial 
     exchange that made possible the development and growth of the 
     borderland;
       (4) American Indian groups, especially the Pueblo Indians 
     of the Rio Grande, developed trails for trade long before 
     Europeans arrived;
       (5) In 1598, Juan de Onate led a Spanish military 
     expedition along those trails to establish the northern 
     portion of El Camino Real;
       (6) During the Mexican National Period and part of the U.S. 
     Territorial Period, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 
     facilitated the emigration of people to New Mexico and other 
     areas that would become the United States;
       (7) The exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, 
     religious conversion, and military occupation of a large area 
     of the borderlands was made possible by this route, whose 
     historical period extended from 1598 to 1882;
       (8) American Indians, European emigrants, miners, ranchers, 
     soldiers, and missionaries used El Camino Real during the 
     historic development of the borderlands. These travelers 
     promoted cultural interaction among Spaniards, other 
     Europeans, American Indians, Mexicans, and Americans;
       (9) El Camino Real fostered the spread of Catholicism, 
     mining, an extensive network of commerce, and ethnic and 
     cultural traditions including music, folklore, medicine, 
     foods, architecture, language, place names, irrigation 
     systems, and Spanish law.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 5 (a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244 (a)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the paragraphs relating to the 
     California National Historic Trail, the Pony Express National 
     Historic Trail, and the Selma to Montgomery National Historic 
     Trail as paragraphs (18), (19), and (20), respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) El camino real de tierra adentro.--
       ``(A) El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (the Royal Road of 
     the Interior) National Historic Trail, a 404 mile long trail 
     from the Rio Grande near El Paso, Texas to present San Juan 
     Pueblo, New Mexico, as generally depicted on the maps 
     entitled `United States Route: El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro', contained in the report prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (b) entitled `National Historic Trail Feasibility 
     Study and Environmental Assessment: El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro, Texas-New Mexico', dated March 1997.
       ``(B) Map.--A map generally depicting the trail shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the Office of the 
     National Park Service, Department of Interior.
       ``(C) Administration.--The Trail shall be administered by 
     the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(D) Land Acquisition.--No lands or interests therein 
     outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered 
     area may be acquired by the Federal Government for El Camino 
     Real de Tierra Adentro except with the consent of the owner 
     thereof.
       ``(E) Volunteer Groups; consultation.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       ``(i) encourage volunteer trail groups to participate in 
     the development and maintenance of the trail; and
       ``(ii) consult with other affected Federal, State, and 
     tribal agencies in the administration of the trail.
       ``(F) Coordination of activities.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may coordinate with United States and Mexican public 
     and non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, 
     and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the 
     government of Mexico and its political subdivisions, for the 
     purpose of exchanging trail information and research, 
     fostering trail preservation and educational programs, 
     providing technical assistance, and working to establish an 
     international historic trail with complementary preservation 
     and education programs in each nation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 367. A bill to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to 
provide for partial restitution to individuals who worked in uranium 
mines, mills, or transport which provided uranium for the use and 
benefit of the United States Government, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


          the radiation exposure compensation improvement act

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Daschle, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Improvement Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, was 
originally enacted in 1990 as a means of compensating the individuals 
who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the U.S. 
government's nuclear testing program and federal uranium mining 
activities. While the government can never fully compensate for the 
loss of a life or a reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a 
cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended to those 
adversely affected by the various radiation tragedies. In keeping with 
the spirit of that apology, the legislation I introduce today will 
further correct existing injustices and provide compassionate 
compensation for those whose lives and health were sacrificed as part 
of our nation's effort to win the cold war.
  During the period of 1947 to 1961, the Federal Government controlled 
all aspects of the production of nuclear fuel. One such aspect was the 
mining of uranium in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. Even 
though the Federal Government had adequate knowledge of the hazards 
involved in uranium mining, these miners, many of whom were Native 
Americans, were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually 
no instruction regarding the dangers of ionizing radiation. These 
miners had no idea of

[[Page 1880]]

those dangers. Consequently, they inhaled radon particles that 
eventually yielded high doses of ionizing radiation. As a result, these 
miners have a substantially elevated cancer rate and incidence of 
incapacitating respiratory disease. The health effects of uranium 
mining in the fifties and sixties remain the single greatest concern of 
many former uranium miners and millers and their families and friends.
  In 1990, I was pleased to co-sponsor the original RECA legislation 
here in the Senate to provide compassionate compensation to uranium 
miners. I was very optimistic that after years of waiting, some degree 
of redress would be given to the thousands of miners in my state of New 
Mexico. Subsequently, I chaired the Senate oversight hearing on this 
issue in Shiprock, N.M. for the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee in 1993 and began to learn that while our efforts in 1990 
were well intentioned they were not proving to be as effective as 
hoped. I additionally heard from many of my constituents that the 
program was not working as intended and that changes were necessary. To 
that end, I worked to facilitate changes in the regulatory and 
administrative areas.
  Unfortunately, I have continued to hear from many of my constituents 
that the program still does not work as intended. I have received 
compelling letters of need from constituents telling of the many 
barriers in the current statute that lead to denial of compensation. 
Letters come from widows unable to access the current compensation. 
Miners tied to oxygen tanks, in respiratory distress or dying from 
cancer write to tell me how they have been denied compensation under 
the current act. Additionally, family members write of the pain of 
fathers who worked in uranium processing mills. They recount how their 
fathers came home covered in the ``yellow cake'' or uranium oxide that 
was floating in the air of the mills. The story of their fathers' 
cancers and painful breathing are vivid in these letters but the 
current act does not address their needs.
  Their points are backed by others as well. In fact, my legislation 
incorporates findings by the Committee on the Biological Effects of 
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) which has, since 1990, enlarged scientific 
evidence about radiogenic cancers and the health effects of radiation 
exposure. In other words, because of their good work, we know more now 
than we did in 1990 and we need to make sure the compensation we 
provide keeps pace with our medical knowledge. The government has the 
responsibility to compensate all those adversely affected and who have 
suffered health problems because they were not adequately informed of 
the risks they faced while mining, milling, and transporting uranium 
ore.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is a starting 
point for amending the current Act designed with specific elements to 
better serve the individuals who apply for compensation under the Act. 
The legislation is designed to simplify RECA and broaden the scope of 
individuals who are eligible for compensation.
  Mr. President, I would like to cite several of the key provisions in 
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. Currently 
RECA covers those exposed to radiation released in underground uranium 
mines that were providing uranium for the primary use and benefit of 
the nuclear weapons program of the U.S. government. The legislation 
would make all uranium workers eligible for compensation including 
above ground miners, millers, and transport workers. I am very 
concerned about the need to expand compensation to the categories of 
workers not covered by the current law, specifically those in above 
ground, open pit mines, mill workers, and those employed to transport 
uranium ore. There is overwhelming evidence that these workers have 
developed cancer and other diseases as a result of their exposure to 
uranium. While attempts have been made to get the scientific data 
necessary to substantiate the link between their work situation and 
their health problems, barriers have been encountered and I am told 
that data will not be readily available. I believe that it is necessary 
to move forward in this area and not deny further compensation awaiting 
study results that in the end may not be deemed to be statistically 
valid because of the difficulty in obtaining access to records and the 
millers themselves.
  RECA currently covers individuals termed ``downwinders'' who were in 
the areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona affected by atmospheric nuclear 
testing in the 1950's. This bill expands the geographical area eligible 
for compensation to include the Navajo Reservation because, based on a 
recent report of the National Cancer Institute, Navajo children during 
the 1950's received extremely high Iodine-131 thyroid doses during the 
period of heaviest fallout from the Nevada Test site. In addition, the 
bill expands the compensable diseases for the downwind population by 
adding salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, and ovarian 
cancers.
  Currently, the law has disproportionately high levels of radiation 
exposure requirements for miners to qualify for compensation as 
compared to the ``downwinders.'' My legislation would set a standard of 
proof for uranium workers that is more realistic given the availability 
of mining and mill data. The bill also removes the provision that only 
permits a claim for respiratory disease if the uranium mining occurred 
on a reservation. Thus, the bill will allow for further filing of a 
claim by those miners, millers, and transport workers who did not have 
a work history on a reservation. In addition, the bill would change the 
current law so that requirements for written medical documentation is 
updated to allow for use of high resolution CAT scans and allow for 
written diagnoses by physicians in either the Department of Veterans 
Affairs or the Indian Health Service to be considered conclusive.
  In 1990, we joined together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort and 
assured passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Now 
we put forward this comprehensive amendment to RECA to correct 
omission, make RECA consistent with current medical knowledge, and to 
address what have become administrative borrow stories for the 
claimants. I look forward to the debate in the Senate on this issue and 
hope that we can move to amend the current statute to ensure our 
original intent--fair and rapid compensation to those who served their 
country so well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
Radiation Improvement Compensation Act printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 367

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999.''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The intent of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), enacted in 1990, was to apologize to 
     victims of the weapons program of the Federal Government, but 
     uranium workers who have applied for compensation under the 
     Act have faced a disturbing number of challenges.
       (2) The congressional oversight hearing conducted by the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate has 
     shown that since passage of the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act, former uranium workers and their families 
     have not received prompt and efficient compensation.
       (3) There is no plausible justification for the Federal 
     Government's failure to warn and protect the lives and health 
     of uranium workers.
       (4) Progress on implementing the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act has been impeded by criteria for 
     compensation that is far more stringent than for other groups 
     for which compensation is provided.
       (5) The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
     Experiments recommended that amendments to the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation should be made.
       (6) Uranium millers, aboveground miners, and individuals 
     who transported uranium ore should be provided compensation 
     that is similar to that provided for underground uranium 
     miners in cases in which those individuals suffered disease 
     or resultant death as a result of the failure of the Federal 
     Government to warn of health hazards.

     SEC. 2. TRUST FUND.

       Section 3(d) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is

[[Page 1881]]

     amended by striking ``of this Act'' and inserting ``of the 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999.''.

     SEC. 3. AFFECTED AREA; CLAIMS RELATING TO SPECIFIED DISEASES.

       (a) Affected Area.--Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) those parts of Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico 
     comprising the Navajo Nation Reservation that were subjected 
     to fallout from nuclear weapons testing conducted in Nevada; 
     and''.
       (b) Claims Relating to Specified Diseases.--Section 4(b)(2) 
     of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the onset of the disease was between 2 
     and 30 years of first exposure,'' and inserting ``the onset 
     of the disease was at least 2 years after first exposure, 
     lung cancer (other than in situ lung cancer that is 
     discovered during or after a post-mortem exam),'';
       (2) by striking ``(provided initial exposure occurred by 
     the age of 20)'' after ``thyroid'';
       (3) by inserting ``male or'' before ``female breast'';
       (4) by striking ``(provided initial exposure occurred prior 
     to age 40)'' after ``female breast'';
       (5) by striking ``(provided low alcohol consumption and not 
     a heavy smoker)'' after ``esophagus'';
       (6) by striking ``(provided initial exposure occurred 
     before age 30)'' after ``stomach'';
       (7) by striking ``(provided not a heavy smoker)'' after 
     ``pharynx'';
       (8) by striking ``(provided not a heavy smoker and low 
     coffee consumption)'' after ``pancreas'';
       (9) by inserting ``salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, 
     colon, ovary,'' after ``gall bladder,''; and
       (10) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia''.

     SEC. 4. URANIUM MINING AND MILLING AND TRANSPORT.

       (a) Amendment to Heading.--Section 5 of the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by 
     striking the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 5. CLAIMS RELATING TO URANIUM MINING OR MILLING OR 
                   TRANSPORT.''.

       (b) Milling.--Section 5(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any'' and inserting ``Any individual who 
     was employed to transport or handle uranium ore or any''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or in any other State in which uranium 
     was mined, milled, or transported'' after ``Utah''.
       (c) Mines.--Section 5(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), as amended by 
     subsection (a) of this section, is amended by striking ``a 
     uranium mine'' and inserting ``a uranium mine (including a 
     mine located aboveground or an open pit mine in which uranium 
     miners worked, or a uranium mill)''.
       (d) Dates.--Section 5(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), as amended by 
     subsections (b) and (c) of this section, is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 1947, and ending on December 31, 1971'' 
     and inserting ``January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 
     1990''.
       (e) Amendment of Period of Exposure; Expansion of Coverage; 
     Increase in Compensation Awards; and Removal of Smoking 
     Distinction.--Section 5(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), as amended by 
     subsections (b) through (d) of this section, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and all that follows through 
     the end of the subsection and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Compensation.--Any individual shall receive $200,000 
     for a claim made under this Act if--
       ``(A) that individual--
       ``(i) was exposed to 40 or more working level months of 
     radiation and submits written medical documentation that the 
     individual, after exposure developed--

       ``(I) lung cancer,
       ``(II) a nonmalignant respiratory disease, or
       ``(III) any other medical condition associated with uranium 
     mining or milling, or

       ``(ii) worked in uranium mining, milling, or transport for 
     a period of at least 1 year and submits written medical 
     documentation that the individual, after exposure, 
     developed--

       ``(I) lung cancer,
       ``(II) a nonmalignant respiratory disease, or
       ``(III) any other medical condition associated with uranium 
     mining, milling, or transport,

       ``(B) the claim for that payment is filed with the Attorney 
     General by or on behalf of that individual, and
       ``(C) the Attorney General determines, in accordance with 
     section 6, that the claim meets the requirements of this 
     Act.''.
       (2) by striking ``(a) Eligibility of Individuals.--Any'' 
     and inserting the following: ``(a) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any''; and
       (3) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking the 
     dash at the end and inserting a period.
       (f) Claims Related to Human Radiation Experimentation and 
     Death Resulting From Cause Other Than Radiation.--Section 5 
     of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Claims Relating to Human Use Research and Death 
     Resulting From Nonradiological Causes.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Payment.--Any individual described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall receive $50,000 if--
       ``(i) a claim for that payment is filed with the Attorney 
     General by or on behalf of that individual; and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General determines, in accordance with 
     section 6, that the claim meets the requirements of this Act.
       ``(B) Description of individuals.--An individual described 
     in this subparagraph is an individual who--
       ``(i) was employed in a uranium mining, milling, or 
     transport within any State referred to in subsection (a) at 
     any time during the period referred to in that subsection, 
     and
       ``(ii)(I) in the course of that employment, without the 
     individual's knowledge or informed consent, was intentionally 
     exposed to radiation for purposes of testing, research, 
     study, or experimentation by the Federal Government 
     (including any agency of the Federal Government) to determine 
     the effects of that exposure on the human body; or
       ``(II) in the course of or arising out of the individual's 
     employment, suffered death, that, because the individual or 
     the estate of the individual was barred from pursuing 
     recovery under a worker's compensation system or civil action 
     available to similarly situated employees of mines or mills 
     that are not uranium mines or mills, is not otherwise--

       ``(aa) compensable under subsection (a); or
       ``(bb) redressable.

       ``(2) Payments.--Payments under this subsection may be made 
     only in accordance with section 6.''.
       (g) Other Injury or Disability.--Section 5 of the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), as amended 
     by subsection (f) of this section, is amended by adding after 
     subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Other Injury or Disability.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Payment.--Any individual described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall receive $20,000 if--
       ``(i) a claim for that payment is filed with the Attorney 
     General by or on behalf of that individual; and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General determines, in accordance with 
     section 6, that the claim meets the requirements of this Act.
       ``(B) Description of individuals.--An individual described 
     in this subparagraph is an individual who--
       ``(i) was employed in a uranium mine or mill or transported 
     uranium ore within any State referred to in subsection (a) at 
     any time during the period referred to in that subsection; 
     and
       ``(ii) submits written medical documentation that 
     individual suffered injury or disability, arising out of or 
     in the course of the individual's employment that, because 
     the individual or the estate of the individual was barred 
     from pursuing recovery under a worker's compensation system 
     or civil action available to similarly situated employees of 
     mines or mills that are not uranium mines or mills, is not 
     otherwise--

       ``(I) compensable under subsection (a); or
       ``(II) redressable.

       ``(2) Payments.--Payments under this subsection may be made 
     only in accordance with section 6.''.
       (h) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 5 of the 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), as 
     redesignated by subsection (f) of this section, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``radiation exposure'' and inserting 
     ``exposure to radon and radon progeny''; and
       (B) by inserting ``based on a 6-day workweek,'' after 
     ``every work day for a month,'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) the term `affected Indian tribe' means any Indian 
     tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or 
     community, that is recognized as eligible for special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to Indian 
     tribes because of their status as Native Americans, whose 
     people engaged in uranium mining or milling or were employed 
     where uranium mining or milling was conducted;'';
       (3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the term `course of employment' means--
       ``(A) any period of employment in a uranium mine or uranium 
     mill before or after December 31, 1971, or
       ``(B) the cumulative period of employment in both a uranium 
     mine and uranium mill in any case in which an individual was 
     employed in both a uranium mine and a uranium mill;
       ``(4) the term `lung cancer' means any physiological 
     condition of the lung, trachea,

[[Page 1882]]

     and bronchus that is recognized under that name or 
     nomenclature by the National Cancer Institute, including any 
     in situ cancer;
       ``(5) the term `nonmalignant respiratory disease' means 
     fibrosis of the lung, pulmonary fibrosis, corpulmonale 
     related to pulmonary fibrosis, or moderate or severe 
     silicosis or pneumoconiosis;
       ``(6) the term `other medical condition associated with 
     uranium mining, milling, or uranium transport' means any 
     medical condition associated with exposure to radiation, 
     heavy metals, chemicals, or other toxic substances to which 
     miners and millers are exposed in the mining and milling of 
     uranium;
       ``(7) the term `uranium mill' includes milling operations 
     involving the processing of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium 
     ore, including carbonate and acid leach plants;
       ``(8) the term `uranium transport' means human physical 
     contact involved in moving uranium ore from 1 site to 
     another, including mechanical conveyance, physical shoveling, 
     or driving a vehicle;
       ``(9) the term `uranium mine' means any underground 
     excavation, including dog holes, open pit, strip, rim, 
     surface, or other aboveground mines, where uranium ore or 
     vanadium-uranium ore was mined or otherwise extracted;
       ``(10) the term `working level' means the concentration of 
     the short half-life daughters (known as `progeny') of radon 
     that will release (1.3 x 105) million electron 
     volts of alpha energy per liter of air; and
       ``(11) the term `written medical documentation' for 
     purposes of proving a nonmalignant respiratory disease means, 
     in any case in which the claimant is living--
       ``(A) a chest x-ray administered in accordance with 
     standard techniques and the interpretive reports thereof by 2 
     certified `B' readers classifying the existence of the 
     nonmalignant respiratory disease of category 1/0 or higher 
     according to a 1989 report of the International Labour Office 
     (known as the `ILO'), or subsequent revisions;
       ``(B) a high resolution computed tomography scan (commonly 
     known as an `HCRT scan') and any interpretive report for that 
     scan;
       ``(C) a pathology report of a tissue biopsy;
       ``(D) a pulmonary function test indicating restrictive lung 
     function (as defined by the American Thoracic Society); or
       ``(E) an arterial blood gas study.''.

     SEC. 5. DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Determination and Payment of Claims, Generally.--
     Section 6 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``All reasonable doubt with regard to whether a claim meets 
     the requirements of this Act shall be resolved in favor of 
     the claimant.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Evidence.--In support of a claim for compensation 
     under section 5, the Attorney General shall permit the 
     introduction of, and a claimant may use and rely upon, 
     affidavits and other documentary evidence, including medical 
     evidence, to the same extent as permitted by the Federal 
     Rules of Evidence.
       ``(3) Interpretation of chest x-rays.--For purposes of this 
     Act, a chest x-ray and the accompanying interpretive report 
     required in support of a claim under section 5(a), shall--
       ``(A) be considered to be conclusive, and
       ``(B) be subject to a fair and random audit procedure 
     established by the Attorney General.
       ``(4) Certain written diagnoses.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this Act, in any case in 
     which a written diagnosis is made by a physician described in 
     subparagraph (B) of a nonmalignant pulmonary disease or lung 
     cancer of a claimant that is accompanied by written medical 
     documentation that meets the definition of that term under 
     subsection (b)(11), that written diagnosis shall be 
     considered to be conclusive evidence of that disease.
       ``(B) Description of physicians.--A physician described in 
     this subparagraph is a physician who--
       ``(i) is employed by--

       ``(I) the Indian Health Service of the Department of Health 
     and Human Services, or

       ``(II) the Department of Veterans Affairs, and

       ``(ii) is responsible for examining or treating the 
     claimant involved.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``in a uranium 
     mine'' and inserting ``in uranium mining, milling, or 
     transport''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``by the Federal 
     Government'' and inserting ``through the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``(d) Action on Claims.--The Attorney 
     General'' and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Action on Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Determination of period.--For purposes of determining 
     the tolling of the 12-month period under paragraph (1), a 
     claim under this Act shall be considered to have been filed 
     as of the date of the receipt of that claim by the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(3) Administrative review.--If the Attorney General 
     denies a claim referred to in paragraph (1), the claimant 
     shall be permitted a reasonable period of time in which to 
     seek administrative review of the denial by the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(4) Final determination.--The Attorney General shall make 
     a final determination with respect to any administrative 
     review conducted under paragraph (3) not later than 90 days 
     after the receipt of the claimant's request for that review.
       ``(5) Effect of failure to render a determination.--If the 
     Attorney General fails to render a determination during the 
     12-month period under paragraph (1), the claim shall be 
     deemed awarded as a matter of law and paid.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``in a uranium mine'' 
     and inserting ``uranium mining, milling, or transport'';
       (5) in subsection (k), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``With respect to any amendment made to this Act after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     issue revised regulations, guidelines, and procedures to 
     carry out that amendment not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of that amendment.''; and
       (6) in subsection (l)--
       (A) by striking ``(l) Judicial Review.--An individual'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(l) Judicial Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Attorney's fees.--If the court that conducts a review 
     under paragraph (1) sets aside a denial of a claim under this 
     Act as unlawful, the court shall award claimant reasonable 
     attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect to the 
     court's review.
       ``(3) Interest.--If, after a claimant is denied a claim 
     under this Act, the claimant subsequently prevails upon 
     remand of that claim, the claimant shall be awarded interest 
     on the claim at a rate equal to 8 percent, calculated from 
     the date of the initial denial of the claim.
       ``(4) Treatment of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.--
     Any attorney's fees, costs, and interest awarded under this 
     section shall--
       ``(A) be considered to be costs incurred by the Attorney 
     General, and
       ``(B) not be paid from the Fund, or set off against, or 
     otherwise deducted from, any payment to a claimant under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Furtherance of Special Trust Responsibility to Affected 
     Indian Tribes; Self-Determination Program Election.--In 
     furtherance of, and consistent with, the trust responsibility 
     of the United States to Native American uranium workers 
     recognized by Congress in enacting the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), section 6 of that 
     Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In establishing any such procedure, the Attorney General 
     shall take into consideration and incorporate, to the fullest 
     extent feasible, Native American law, tradition, and custom 
     with respect to the submission and processing of claims by 
     Native Americans.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after paragraph (3) the 
     following:
       ``(4) Pulmonary function standards.--In determining the 
     pulmonary impairment of a claimant, the Attorney General 
     shall evaluate the degree of impairment based on ethnic-
     specific pulmonary function standards.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(5)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) in consultation with any affected Indian tribe, 
     establish guidelines for the determination of claims filed by 
     Native American uranium miners, millers, and transport 
     workers pursuant to section 5.'';
       (4) in subsection (b), by adding after paragraph (5) the 
     following:
       ``(6) Self-determination program election.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Attorney General on the request of 
     any affected Indian tribe by tribal resolution, may enter 
     into 1 or more self-determination contracts with a tribal 
     organization of that Indian tribe pursuant to the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.) to plan, conduct, and administer the disposition 
     and award of claims under this Act to the extent that members 
     of the affected Indian tribe are concerned.
       ``(B) Approval.--(i) On the request of an affected Indian 
     tribe to enter into a self-determination contract referred to 
     in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall approve or 
     reject the request in a manner consistent with section 102 of 
     the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450f).
       ``(ii) The Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) shall apply to the 
     approval and subsequent implementation of a self-
     determination contract entered into under clause (i) or

[[Page 1883]]

     any rejection of such a contract, if that contract is 
     rejected.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds authorized for use by the Attorney General to 
     carry out the functions of the Attorney General under 
     subsection (i) may be used for the planning, training, 
     implementation, and administration of any self-determination 
     contract that the Attorney General enters into with an 
     affected Indian tribe under this section.''; and
       (5) in subsection (c)(4), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Application of native american law.--In determining 
     the eligibility of individuals to receive compensation under 
     this Act by reason of marriage, relationship, or 
     survivorship, the Attorney General shall take into 
     consideration and give effect to established law, tradition, 
     and custom of affected Indian tribes.''.

     SEC. 6. CHOICE OF REMEDIES.

       Section 7(b) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Choice of Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), the 
     payment of an award under any provision of this Act does not 
     preclude the payment of an award under any other provision of 
     this Act.
       ``(2) Limitation.--No individual may receive more than 1 
     award payment for any compensable cancer or other compensable 
     disease.''.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       Section 8 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.

       ``(a) Bar.--After the date that is 20 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
     Improvement Act no claim may be filed under this Act.
       ``(b) Applicability of Amendments.--The amendments made to 
     this Act by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement 
     Act shall apply to any claim under this Act that is pending 
     or commenced on or after October 5, 1990, without regard to 
     whether payment for that claim could have been awarded before 
     the date of enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
     Improvement Act as the result of previous filing and prior 
     payment under this Act.''.

     SEC. 8. REPORT.

       Section 12 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 12. REPORTS.'';

     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Uranium Mill and Mine Report.--Not later than January 
     1, 2001, the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       ``(1) summarizes medical knowledge concerning adverse 
     health effects sustained by residents of communities who 
     reside adjacent to--
       ``(A) uranium mills or mill tailings,
       ``(B) aboveground uranium mines, or
       ``(C) open pit uranium mines; and
       ``(2) summarizes available information concerning the 
     availability and accessibility of medical care that 
     incorporates the best available standards of practice for 
     individuals with malignancies and other compensable diseases 
     relating to exposure to uranium as a result of uranium mining 
     and milling activities;
       ``(3) summarizes the reclamation efforts with respect to 
     uranium mines, mills, and mill tailings in Colorado, New 
     Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah; and
       ``(4) makes recommendations for further actions to ensure 
     health and safety relating to the efforts referred to in 
     paragraph (3).''.

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 9 years ago Congress took the 
landmark step of extending benefits through the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA) to thousands of American victims of the 
Cold War who were unknowingly and wrongly exposed to life-threatening 
levels of radiation and other harmful materials as part of our nation's 
nuclear weapons program.
  This law was long overdue, and was an important step by Congress to 
acknowledge the federal government's responsibility for its failure to 
warn or take adequate steps to protect victims of radioactive fallout 
from weapons testing and underground uranium miners who breathed 
harmful levels of radon as they worked to supply our nuclear weapons 
program. The law makes individuals who have developed cancer or other 
health problems as a result of their exposure to radiation eligible for 
up to $100,000 in compensation from the government.
  In the 9 years since the passage of that bill, we have had time to 
reflect upon its strengths and its shortcomings. During that time, it 
has become overwhelmingly clear that we have not fully met our 
obligation to victims of our nuclear program. Most seriously, we have 
arbitrarily and unfairly limited compensation for underground miners to 
those in only 5 states, despite the fact that underground miners in 
other states such as South Dakota faced exactly the same risk to their 
health. This fact alone requires us to amend RECA so that we can right 
this wrong.
  However, we have also excluded other groups of workers, and their 
surviving families, from compensation for serious health problems and, 
in some cases, deaths, that have resulted from their work to help 
defend our nation. Many of those who worked in uranium mills, for 
example, have developed serious respiratory problems as a result of 
exposure to uranium dusts and silica. Concerns have been raised about 
above-ground miners and uranium transportation workers as well.
  It is the obligation of the 106th Congress to continue the work of 
the 101st. Not only is it incumbent upon us to extend the law to 
compensate underground miners unfairly left out of the original 
legislation, we need to extend the law to cover new groups of workers 
who face similar risks to their health. It is for that reason that I am 
joining with Senator Bingaman today to sponsor the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation will expand RECA 
to cover underground miners in all states, as well as surface miners, 
transportation workers and uranium mill workers who have had health 
problems as a result of their work with uranium. I hope my colleagues 
will join us to pass this legislation quickly.
  I also feel an obligation to correct the historical record. During my 
review of the scientific literature on the uranium industry and of 
testimony before Congress, I was concerned to see that South Dakota's 
former uranium industry has gone virtually unnoticed by the rest of the 
nation despite the fact that South Dakotans who worked in the industry 
appear to be suffering exactly the same long-term health consequences 
as residents of other states. For that reason, I would like to take a 
moment to outline the history of uranium mining and processing in my 
state.
  Uranium was first discovered in South Dakota in the summer of 1951, 
along the fringe of the Black Hills where grasslands uplift into pine 
forest. As you know, 1951 was a difficult time in American history. The 
Cold War with the Soviet Union was deepening, and the United States was 
rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. To supply this new 
weapons program, the United States adopted a program of government 
price supports to create a domestic uranium industry under the 
jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).
  Almost immediately, South Dakota became one of the AEC's suppliers. 
After uranium was discovered in South Dakota, the AEC established an 
office in Hot Springs to conduct airborne radiometric surveys, and 
small-scale prospecting began. South Dakota's first uranium ore was 
shipped by rail to Colorado for processing, until an ore-buying station 
was established by the AEC in the town of Edgemont in December of 1952. 
A uranium mill was constructed in Edgemont shortly afterwards.
  Uranium mining and milling continued for nearly two decades in my 
state. According to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 
there were over 100 uranium mines in the vicinity of Edgemont, of which 
at least 22 were underground. In their 20 years of operation between 
1953 and 1973, these mines produced nearly 1 million short tons of ore 
and just over 3 million pounds of processed uranium.
  Ore from South Dakota's mines was processed at the mill in Edgemont. 
According to a document provided to me by the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, which later acquired the mill and the responsibility for its 
cleanup, ``From 1956 through 1972 (when the uranium circuit was shut 
down and the mill stopped producing uranium concentrates), 
approximately 2,500,000 tons of mill tailings were produced onsite. Of 
this total, approximately 2,050,000

[[Page 1884]]

tons--82 percent--were produced under contract with the AEC for defense 
purposes. In fact, all of the uranium concentrates produced through 
December 31, 1966, and a portion of those produced until 1968 were sold 
to the AEC. The remaining 450,000 tons of mill tailings--18 percent--
were produced under contracts for commercial sales.''
  Mr. President, much of this information was difficult to come by, and 
to ensure that all those who need it in the future have full access to 
it.
  As these records make clear, for over 20 years South Dakota played a 
significant role in supplying uranium for our nation's nuclear weapons 
program. Yet rarely will you find South Dakota mentioned in any of the 
debate over the long-term consequences of that program. I am determined 
to change that fact, and to ensure that all South Dakotans, and other 
individuals across the country, who are suffering from poor health, or 
who are surviving relatives of uranium workers who have died as a 
result of their work, are fairly compensated by the federal government 
for their losses.
  As my colleagues know, in RECA Congress officially recognized that 
``the lives and health of uranium miners and of individuals who were 
exposed to radiation were subjected to increased risk of injury and 
disease to serve the national security interests of the United 
States.'' However, the law only makes this determination for fallout 
victims and for underground uranium miners in 5 states. I believe it 
must be broadened to include underground uranium miners in all states. 
This is a matter of simple fairness. I can find no reasonable 
explanation for the failure of the law to include South Dakota and 
other states that had underground uranium mines whose workers would 
have been exposed to unsafe levels of radon. In addition, the law 
should be broadened to include uranium mill workers, surface miners and 
transportation workers to ensure that all those who may be suffering 
from health problems as a result of exposure to uranium dust or other 
harmful materials are compensated fairly. While there are strong 
grounds on which to expand the act to include all of these groups of 
workers, it is helpful to examine closely the evidence supporting the 
inclusion of one of these groups--mill workers--to better understand 
our reasons for seeking this change.
  The grounds for expanding the act to include mill workers are largely 
the same as those which led Congress to pass RECA 9 years ago. The 
United States government, which created the domestic uranium industry 
through price supports in order to supply its nuclear weapons program, 
failed to adequately warn mill workers of potential risks to their 
health, to take reasonable measures to create a safe working 
environment, or to act on initial warnings and conduct long-term 
studies of mill workers to determine whether their health was being 
affected by their work.
  The federal government recognized the potential risks of uranium 
production from the onset of our nuclear program, and in 1949 the 
Public Health Service (PHS) initiated a study of both underground 
miners and millers to determine whether they were suffering from any 
adverse health effects. Troublingly, a decision was also made by the 
federal government not to inform workers that their health could be at 
risk. As Senior District Judge Copple noted in his decision in Begay v. 
United States, ``In order to proceed with the epidemiological study, it 
was necessary to obtain the consent and voluntary cooperation of all 
mine operators. To do this, it was decided by PHS under the Surgeon 
General that the individual miners would not be told of possible 
potential hazards from radiation in the mines for fear that many miners 
would quit and others would be difficult to secure because of fear of 
cancer. This would seriously interrupt badly needed production of 
uranium.'' While the court's decision does not make clear whether that 
same decision applied to uranium millers, subsequent research has shown 
that over 80 percent of former mill workers felt they were not informed 
about the hazards of radiation during their employment.
  The early results of this study, as described in a May 1952 report 
entitled, ``An Interim Report of a Health Study of the Uranium Mines 
and Mills,'' are disturbing. It notes that, ``In 1950, 13.8 percent of 
the white miners and 26.5 percent of the white millers showed more than 
the usual pulmonary fibrosis, as compared to 7.5 percent in a control 
group. In the same year, 20 percent of the Indian millers and 13.2 
percent of the Indian miners showed more than the usual pulmonary 
fibrosis, as against none in the controls. Such a finding would 
indicate a tendency on the part of these individuals to develop 
silicosis from their exposure.'' Given these and other findings, the 
study notes the ``need for repeating the medical studies at frequent 
intervals.''
  It is inexplicable to me that these critical follow-up studies which 
were so strongly recommended by the Public Health Service took place 
only for underground uranium miners. No long-term, follow-up studies of 
uranium millers were conducted. This decision was made despite the fact 
that it was well established that uranium millers were being exposed to 
uranium dusts and silica, which increase the risk of non-malignant lung 
disease.
  One of the reasons the health problems of mill workers appear to have 
been so neglected is that most officials assumed that risks could be 
controlled by adopting standards to prevent workers from breathing or 
swallowing dust produced by yellowcake or uranium ore. As the 1952 PHS 
study states, ``In general, it may be said that there are no health 
hazards in the mills which cannot be controlled by accepted industrial 
hygiene methods.'' Noting poor dust control in the mills, the PHS study 
concluded, ``Until adequate dust control has been established at this 
operation, the workers should be required to wear approved dust 
respirators. Daily baths and frequent changes of clothing by the 
workers in this area are also indicated.''
  These recommendations appear to have been largely ignored. Recent 
studies of former uranium mill workers by Gary Madsen, Susan Dawson and 
Bryan Spykerman of the University of Utah paint a devastating picture 
of workplace conditions in uranium mills prior to the enforcement of 
stringent safety standards in the 1970's. Eighty percent of former mill 
workers interviewed by the researchers for one study said they were 
never informed about possible effects of radiation. Of workers who 
reported working in dusty conditions, 35 percent did not wear 
respirators, and 20 percent wore them infrequently or said they were 
not always available. Sixty-eight percent reported moderate to heavy 
amounts of dust on their clothing at work, and virtually all workers 
reported bringing their dust-covered clothes home to be washed. One 
respondent noted, ``We washed the clothes once a week. It was messy. We 
were expecting our first child. I had to shake my clothes outside. 
There was yellow sand left at the bottom of the washer. All of the 
clothes were washed together. Nobody told us the uranium was 
dangerous--a problem. My wife would get yellowcake on her. I would 
remove my coveralls in the kitchen. Put them in with the rest of the 
[family's] laundry.'' Others reported regularly seeing workers outside 
the mills with yellowcake under their fingernails or in their ears.
  Mr. President, the dangerous conditions revealed by these studies 
show an inexcusable failure on the part of the federal government to 
ensure safe working conditions in an industry it created and 
controlled. And despite failing to enforce these standards or to even 
inform workers of the risk to their health, the government nonetheless 
decided to end long-term studies monitoring the health of mill workers. 
As a result, only a few studies have been conducted of the health 
impacts that uranium milling has had on workers. Dr. Larry Fine, 
Director of the Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field 
Studies of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
summarized the results of these studies in recent testimony before 
Congress:
  ``Health concerns for uranium millers center on their exposures to 
uranium dusts and silica. Exposure to silica and

[[Page 1885]]

relatively insoluble uranium compounds may increase the millers' risk 
of non-malignant respiratory disease, while exposure to relatively 
soluble forms of uranium may increase their risk of kidney disease. The 
two mortality studies of uranium millers have not had adequate 
population size or adequate time since exposure to detect even a 
moderate risk of lung cancer if present; neither study reported an 
elevated risk of lung cancer. One of the two completed mortality 
studies of millers found an increased risk for cancer of the lymphatic 
and hematopoietic organs (excluding leukemia), and the other found an 
increased risk for non-malignant respiratory disease and accidents. A 
non-significant excess in deaths from chronic kidney disease was also 
observed in the second study. There have been two medical studies of 
uranium millers, one of which found evidence for pulmonary fibrosis 
(possibly due to previous mining) and the other of which found evidence 
for kidney damage.''
  I am deeply concerned by our failure to study uranium mill workers 
more thoroughly and by the indications given by the evidence we do have 
that these workers are suffering long-term health consequences as a 
result of their work on behalf of our country. Unfortunately, it may 
now be too late to gather more conclusive evidence. These workers are 
growing older and some are now dying. Their numbers have grown so small 
that it may no longer be possible to conduct the type of conclusive 
study that should have been done years ago. We owe these mill workers 
the benefit of the doubt and should make them or their surviving 
families eligible for the same compensation that underground miners 
receive.
  Indeed, I have heard from many South Dakotans who have waited long 
enough for compensation. They tell me of former miners and mill workers 
who have died of cancer or who suffer from respiratory disease they 
believe is directly related to their exposure to harmful materials in 
their workplace.
  One of the most tragic stories I have heard was written to me in a 
letter from Sharon Kane, a widow in Sturgis, South Dakota. After 
working for 11 years in Edgemont's uranium mill, her husband, Joe, 
developed severe respiratory problems and was forced to leave his work 
at the mill. Unfortunately, his health problems continued. Joe died of 
bone cancer in 1987.
  It is difficult for me to understand why or how our country let this 
happen. However, it is now up to us to ensure that all those who have 
suffered as a result of our nation's actions are fairly compensated. We 
must expand RECA to include uranium mill workers and other groups of 
workers who are suffering as a result of their exposure to uranium dust 
or other materials. We also must ensure the law is expanded to include 
underground uranium miners in all states. By doing so we can make good 
on our debt to workers who have sacrificed their health--and sometimes 
their lives--during the height of the Cold War in order to protect 
their country.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to meet these goals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled, 
``Brief History of Uranium Mining in South Dakota, 1951-1973,'' 
produced by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and a letter from 
Sharon Kane be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Brief History of Uranium Mining in South Dakota, 1951-1973

       Carnotite deposits were discovered in 1951 near Edgemont, 
     South Dakota, in the Lakota member of the Dakota sandstone 
     formation. Under the Atomic Energy Commission Raw Materials 
     Program, all phases of exploration, development, metallurgy, 
     and research were extended on an accelerated basis in 1952. 
     Airborne and ground exploration disclosed several new uranium 
     ore deposits east and west of the original Craven Canyon 
     discovery in South Dakota. In addition, Northwest of Edgemont 
     in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, the Geological Survey 
     located several small but high-grade deposits. Intensive 
     exploration efforts were also conducted by private interests, 
     including Homestead Mining Company in the Black Hills and 
     adjacent area in Wyoming.
       In 1953 administration contracts for defense minerals 
     exploration were awarded to Mining Research Corp., C. G. 
     Ortmayer, and Oxide Metals Corp. in Fall River County. 
     Contracts were also given to Vroua Company and C. E. Weir for 
     exploring in Custer County,
       Homestake Mining Company began mining uranium ore near 
     Carlile, Crook County, Wyoming in January 1953. This mining 
     product was trucked to Edgemont, South Dakota, where the 
     Atomic Energy Commission had a buying station.
       During 1955 the Office of Defense Mobilization issued a 
     Certificate of Necessity for an uranium-ore processing plant 
     project to Mines Development Company, Inc. This plant was in 
     Edgemont, South Dakota. Although appreciable quantities of 
     uranium were recognized in South Dakota lignites, only a 
     small amount was mined. This was due to the lack of 
     acceptable uranium-recovery processes for uranium extraction 
     from coal bearing materials.
       Uranium Research and Development Company was granted a 
     contract in 1956 in Fall River County by the Defense Minerals 
     Exploration Administration.
       Mines Development, Inc. had their uranium mill in operation 
     by 1956. The initial capacity was rated as 300 tons of ore 
     per day.
       Two groups, Anderson, Wesley, and Others in Harding County 
     and McAlester Fuel Co. in Fall River County were given 
     contracts involving uranium in 1957. South Dakota produced 
     69,632 tons of ore, valued at $804,946. The average grade 
     percent in terms of U3O8 was 0.17 which 
     was the lowest of any uranium producing state. The average 
     grade percent increased to 0.20 in 1958. The rating of the 
     Edgemont Plant was increased to 400 tons of ore per day.
       Uranium-ore production in the United States reached a new 
     high in 1959 with South Dakota being the ninth producing 
     state and in 1960 became eighth state producer. The Atomic 
     Energy Commission negotiated for new mills for the South 
     Dakota lignite area but interested firms couldn't reach an 
     agreement.
       In 1960, the Atomic Energy Commission revised its 
     regulations for the protection of employees in atomic energy 
     industries and the general public against hazards arising 
     from the possession or use of AEC-licensed radioactive 
     materials. The revisions are embodied in amendments to Title 
     10, Chapter 1, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations 
     entitled ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation''. The 
     amendments became effective on January 1, 1961.
       The highest year for production of uranium ore for the 
     United States was in 1961 but the total production dropped by 
     1962. Based on the amount of ore shipped, South Dakota became 
     the seventh state producer. The state maintained this rating 
     in 1963 but was the sixth state producer for 1964 and 1965.
       Around 1967, mining of uraniferous lignite in Harding 
     County, South Dakota, ceased as the operation was no longer 
     profitable. Mining of sandstone ores also declined, and Mines 
     Development, Inc., a subsidiary of Susquehanna Corp., 
     conducted extensive exploration in the Dakotas and Wyoming in 
     an effort to find additional ore for their mill.
       The uranium mine and mill production for South Dakota in 
     1968 and 1969 placed the state as the seventh largest 
     producing state. The year 1971 was the first full year that 
     the U3O8 market was entirely private. 
     The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) terminated its 
     U3O8 purchasing program at year end 
     1970 after acquiring U3O8 valued at 
     nearly $3 billion since the program's inception in 1948, 
     including a large stock pile.
       By 1973, the mining of uranium in South Dakota ceased to be 
     profitable and production stopped.
                                  ____

                                                September 8, 1998.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Rapid City, SD.
       Dear Sir: This letter is to urge you to vote in favor of 
     the ``Radiation Workers Justice Act of 1998'', HR 3539.
       My story is very likely similar to many others recited in 
     order to initiate this bill and R.E.C.A. of 1990, however, to 
     me the issues are deeply personal and intimate.
       My late husband Kasper Jerome Kane (known to friends and 
     family as Joe), was employed at the uranium milling operation 
     at Edgemont, S.D. from 1959 to 1970. After several years in 
     the mill, Joe began experiencing upper respiratory problems, 
     especially while on duty at the mill. A detailed medical 
     examination revealed pulmonary changes and enlargement of the 
     heart due to the stress of the pulmonary condition. Our 
     physician advised Joe to find a new line of work and to leave 
     the mill as soon as possible, which he did. When Joe left his 
     job, he cited his health as the reason. Administration of the 
     mill at that time did not receive this information favorably 
     (of course) and denied any accountability.
       Joe chose to work at the mill out of his sense of 
     responsibility to provide for a wife and two children in the 
     best manner he could. His tenacity for life alone allowed him 
     to leave the mill and begin his own business. Joe was active 
     in his community and well loved by his neighbors and friends.
       Even though his quality of life may have been compromised 
     by his respiratory problems, Joe remained active in the lives 
     of his

[[Page 1886]]

     teenage children and his community at large, until he was 
     diagnosed with multiple myeloma (cancer of the bone marrow) 
     in 1987. There is no way to prepare a family for the heart 
     wrenching events about to face my children, their father and 
     me.
       Over the next three years, we lost our business, our home, 
     ranch, and finally my best friend, my husband. Economic loss 
     can be measured and sometimes compensated.
       When Joe finally succumbed to cancer in 1990 at age 53, 
     after rituals of chemotherapy and radiation, his valiant 
     battle was over.
       I have moved on with life, but there is not a day that I do 
     not miss him and each time I hug a grandchild, I know what 
     they have missed. Joe Kane was a fighter and a family man. 
     Dependable and lived the values he preached.
       I hope the bill presented will offer solace to those 
     affected by radiogenic conditions and hope to those yet to 
     need it.
       Thank you for listening to my story.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sharon D. Kane,
                                              Sturgis, SD.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 369. A bill to provide States with the authority to permit certain 
employers of domestic workers to make annual wage reports; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                            tax legislation

   Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce 
legislation to remove a tax reporting burden currently imposed on 
employers of domestic workers. This bill authorizes states to permit 
certain employers of domestic workers to make annual wage reports. I am 
pleased to report that this provision is also included as Section 405 
of S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.
  In 1994, Congress approved important legislation reforming the 
imposition of Social Security and Medicare taxes on domestic employees 
(the so-called ``nanny tax''). These new rules introduced more 
rationality into the tax system, and reduced the reporting requirements 
of domestic employers. Unfortunately, the legislation did not go as far 
as many had intended. To this end, I am asking you to co-sponsor my 
legislation which will help relieve households of certain filing 
requirements.
  The Social Security Domestic Employment Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-
387) aimed to ease reporting requirements. Under the Act, domestic 
employers no longer need to file quarterly returns regarding Social 
Security and Medicare taxes nor the annual federal unemployment tax 
(FUTA) return. Rather, all federal reporting is now consolidated on an 
annual Schedule H filed at the same time as the employer's personal 
income tax return.
  Nevertheless, the goal of the 1994 Act--to substantially reduce 
reporting requirements for domestic employers--has not been fully 
accomplished for employers who endeavor to comply with all aspects of 
the law. Under federal law, a state labor commissioner still may not 
authorize annual rather than quarterly filing of state employment 
taxes. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 compels employers to report 
wages quarterly to the state. This Act requires quarterly reporting in 
order to make information more accessible to state agencies that 
investigate unemployment claims. However, the burden of this provision 
far outweighs its benefit. The number of household employer tax filings 
is relatively minuscule. Representatives from the Georgia Department of 
Labor and their counterparts in several other states are confident that 
the investigation of unemployment claims will not be hindered by annual 
rather than quarterly reporting requirements.
  Under FUTA, employers make quarterly reports and payments to state 
unemployment agencies, then pay an additional sum of federal tax (now 
once a year, as part of Schedule H). While the liability of employers 
for domestic employees was changed for Social Security and Medicare 
purposes, to exclude workers under the age of 18 and workers earning 
less than $1,000 per year, the employers' responsibility under FUTA was 
not changed. More importantly, the 1994 Act did not eliminate the 
requirement that employers must report employee wages quarterly to the 
states.
  Congress was not unmindful of the relationship of FUTA to Social 
Security taxes at the time it passed the 1994 Act. Besides eliminating 
the FUTA return for domestic employers, the Act also contained 
language, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter 
agreements with the states to permit the federal government to collect 
unemployment taxes on behalf of the states, along with all other 
domestic employee taxes, once a year. That statute, if used, would 
eliminate the need for domestic employers to report to state 
unemployment agencies. To date, no state has entered such an agreement. 
This is because the Social Security Act did not alter the quarterly 
reporting requirement.
  In short, the federal requirement of quarterly state employment tax 
reports for purely domestic employers should be eliminated. To ease the 
reporting burden on domestic employers, my legislation proposes that 
states be allowed to provide for annual filing of household employment 
taxes. Please join me in the effort to finish the job of rationalizing 
the taxpayer obligations for domestic employment taxes. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 369

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR STATE TO PERMIT ANNUAL WAGE 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1137(a)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(a)(3)) is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon the following: ``, and except that in the case 
     of wage reports with respect to domestic service employment, 
     a State may permit employers (as so defined) that make 
     returns with respect to such service on a calendar year basis 
     pursuant to section 3510 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to make such reports on an annual basis''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to wage reports required to be submitted on and 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
        Domenici, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        Mack, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 371. A bill to provide assistance to the countries in Central 
America and the Caribbean affected by Hurricane Mitch and Hurricane 
Georges, to provide additional trade benefits to certain beneficiary 
countries in the Caribbean, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


         the central american and caribbean relief act of 1999

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Central American and Caribbean Relief Act of 1999. I am joined in this 
by my colleagues Senators DeWine, Coverdell, Domenici, Landrieu, Dodd, 
Hatch, Frist, Mack, and Hagel. This bill is a comprehensive disaster 
relief package that will help our Caribbean and Central American 
neighbors recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane Georges and 
Hurricane Mitch.
  This past fall, two hurricanes ravaged our neighbors in Central 
America and the Caribbean, causing death and destruction that has not 
been seen in this hemisphere in over 200 years. First, Hurricane 
Georges hit Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Florida 
Keys, and the Gulf Coast of the United States in September of 1998, 
with a ferocity that resulted in 250 deaths and more than $1 billion in 
damage. Only a month later, Hurricane Mitch attacked Central America, 
killing more than 10,000 people and leaving 3 million homeless. 
Hurricane Mitch unleashed a series of destructive forces--floods, 
mudslides, disease--that have affected the lives of 3.2 million 
residents in five nations. In Honduras alone, over 30 percent of the 
population was displaced by Mitch. To put this in perspective, had the 
U.S. suffered comparable levels of damage, 80 million of our citizens 
would have been displaced. The scale of this disaster is truly 
astounding.
  I had the opportunity to see this destruction for myself when I 
visited the region in January. I witnessed whole villages that were 
completely washed away, families crammed into open-air

[[Page 1887]]

shelters, and children playing among the concrete remanents of bridges 
and buildings. I saw field after field destroyed by the heavy rains. 
The losses in the agricultural sector were staggering. In Honduras 
alone, an estimated 70% of the crops were destroyed, including 90% of 
the country's banana and grain crops. Because agriculture employs 
approximately half of the regional workforce, these losses have 
resulted in tremendous economic disruption.
  The Central American and Caribbean Relief Act is a comprehensive plan 
that will help these struggling nations get back on their feet and 
rebuild their economies. First, the bill will expand the current trade 
benefits provided under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. During my 
recent visit to the region their was unanimous agreement, from the 
Presidents of the countries to members of the private sector, the CBI 
enhancement is the number one priority of their economic recovery plan. 
History shows that expanding trade with the Caribbean Basin helps our 
own economy, expanding U.S. exports to the region at the same time that 
we build important trading relations with our closest neighbors. Any 
disaster relief package that does not include CBI enhancement falls far 
short of the mark.
  The second part of this package will continue and expand current 
humanitarian and disaster assistance activities in the region. This 
will help to rehabilitate agricultural production, rebuild bridges and 
roads, provide much needed housing, clear landmines, restore safe water 
and health care, and help prevent similar disasters in the future. This 
is a continuation of the heroic efforts that the U.S. Government has 
already undertaken in response to these hurricanes. U.S. forces have 
been there since the day the disaster struck, rescuing hundreds from 
certain death, moving 30 million pounds of relief supplies, and helping 
rebuild the regions critical infrastructure.
  By working to improve economic development of the region, we will 
help prevent needless environmental damage, strengthen the development 
of democracy in the region, and protect against the proliferation of 
narcotics trafficking. An investment in the long-term recovery of the 
region, which is so important to the United States both economically 
and politically, will produce benefits for the entire Western 
Hemisphere.
  The bill includes the following initiatives:
  $600 million to expand funding for humanitarian efforts to meet needs 
for health, water/sanitation, road reconstruction, agricultural 
restoration, agricultural microcredit, food, shelter, disaster 
mitigation and other emergency relief;
  Enhancement of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to give the 
nations of Central America and the Caribbean the opportunity to quickly 
expand their economies and expand the manufacturing sector while they 
rebuild their agricultural base;
  $16 million for bilateral debt forgiveness for Honduras;
  A micro-credit initiative targeted at reviving agricultural 
production in the region;
  $150 million to replenish Defense Department funds depleted in the 
immediate aftermath of the disaster, including the humanitarian relief 
fund that supports landmine detection and removal;
  $70 million to expand New Horizons, a Department of defense program 
in the region that builds housing and roads, provides medical care, 
health services, and clean water to affected areas;
  Authorization of an OPIC direct equity pilot program to assist U.S. 
businesses in the region, develop low income housing, and rebuild 
damaged infrastructure; and
  $25 million for the Central American Emergency Trust Fund to be 
applied against multilateral debt and provide external financing needs.
  As we move forward to address the devastation of this event, the 
choice facing the United States is clear: we can continue to provide 
emergency assistance to the region for the foreseeable future and 
prepare for waves of refugees, or we can act to implement a 
comprehensive disaster recovery program that will rebuild the economies 
of the affected nations, allowing them to provide for themselves. The 
choice is simple, because helping these nations recovery is in our own 
interest. Failure to act will hurt ourselves and our neighbors. The 
Central American and Caribbean Relief Act is an important opportunity 
for the United States to lend a hand to neighbors in need and help them 
get back on their feet.
   Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today, the Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Graham and I are introducing The Central American and Caribbean 
Relief Act of 1999. We are joined in this effort by the following 
original co-sponsors: Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Domenici, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
Dodd, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Hagel. This important 
legislation is both timely and vital. I urge my colleagues to join us 
as co-sponsors and to work with us to pass it as soon as possible.
  Last year, several of our neighboring countries suffered serious 
catastrophic natural disasters. First, Hurricane Georges struck Puerto 
Rico, the Dominican Republic and Haiti resulting in hundreds dead and 
billions of dollars in damage. These countries were just starting to 
recover when Hurricane Mitch rolled through various countries in 
Central America.
  Hurricane Mitch left unspeakable devastation with over 9,000 dead, 
another 9,000 still missing, and millions homeless. The physical 
devastation will take decades to repair in Honduras and Nicaragua. And 
these countries are not alone: Guatemala, El Salvador, and Belize have 
suffered as well.
  Mr. President, many senior officials in our government have visited 
these devastated regions--and I applaud their interest and exhaustive 
efforts. I have visited this region numerous times within the past year 
and I plan to go back.
  I applaud the extraordinary displays of teamwork, compassion, and 
generosity exhibited by the citizens of Ohio, as well as all Americans, 
in their effort to help the victims of Hurricane Mitch. Their unselfish 
donations to organizations such as the Northeast Ohio Salvation Army 
and the Ohio Hurricane Relief for Central America as well as the many 
other national and local relief agencies serve as an inspirational 
reminder of the global human community spirit we Americans so often 
display. And we certainly do not want to forget the quick response 
provided by our men in uniform, including Ohio's own 445th Air Reserve 
Wing, in saving lives and tackling the daunting task of helping to 
rebuild that region's infrastructure.
  My concern, however, is that once Hurricane Mitch fades out of the 
headlines, there's a risk that this vitally important region itself 
will also disappear off America's sometimes limited radar screen of 
foreign policy attention. The time has come not to address the 
devastation that has passed, but to begin the development that is 
important to our hemisphere's future.
  That is why the Central America and Caribbean Relief Act is so 
important. This act would provide (1) trade opportunities to help the 
region restore itself economically; (2) emergency assistance--feeding 
programs, and important and necessary infrastructure improvements; and 
(3) limited bilateral and multilateral debt reduction.
  Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the highlights of 
this bill. First, this bill would provide several trade and investment 
initiatives. It will afford current beneficiaries of the Caribbean 
Basin Initiative similar treatment already afforded Mexican products 
under the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is important that 
these countries become more fully integrated into the international 
trading system, which also would benefit the U.S. through expanded 
export opportunities. The bill also would authorize additional funding 
for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to enhance the ability 
of private enterprise to make its full contribution to the region's 
rebuilding and development process.
  Second, this bill would provide bilateral assistance. I fully support 
the replenishment of funds exhausted by the

[[Page 1888]]

Department of Defense in their humanitarian relief efforts. It is very 
important that our military's efforts in this area continue and that 
they maintain sufficient resources to effectively deploy against future 
natural disasters. We also included language based on the innovative 
``Africa Seeds of Hope'' law, which I wrote and Congress passed last 
year. This language would authorize a micro-credit initiative targeted 
at reviving agricultural production in the region. This means that 
financial tools and resources would go directly to farmers and small 
businesses and bypass Government middlemen.
  Finally, this bill would provide much needed debt relief. This debt 
relief clearly makes sense especially when keeping in mind that in many 
cases, the infrastructure these countries are paying for is precisely 
what has been destroyed by Hurricane Mitch--they are paying for what no 
longer exists.
  Mr. President, let me explain why America should take the lead on 
this relief. Before the hurricanes, the people of Central America were 
emerging from a decade of civil war. Democracy has finally taken hold, 
but is not yet irreversible. The United States invested billions in the 
1980s to expel communism from Central America. We succeeded. That 
investment--that partnership for democracy in Central America now hangs 
in the balance.
  In the 1980s, it was fundamentally important to the entire hemisphere 
that Central America be a seedbed of reliable trading partners--not 
revolutionaries or brutal autocrats. The President's National 
Bipartisan Commission on Central America, chaired by Henry Kissinger, 
released a detailed report in 1984 that expressed our basic challenge. 
We needed then, and still need today, a comprehensive Central America 
policy--one that responds not to fleeting crises but to the basic needs 
of the region and the United States.
  These needs do not change. They are the same three principles that 
formed the core of the philosophy of the Kissinger report: ``Democratic 
self-determination * * * encouragement of economic and social 
development that fairly benefits all * * * (and) cooperation in meeting 
threats to the security of the region.'' This report recognized how 
free markets and free societies work to strengthen each other.
  U.S. policy has made excellent progress on all of these counts, but 
Hurricane Mitch provides a pointed reminder of how fragile--and 
reversible--the progress can be. History offers us a sober reminder 
that from misery, despair, and joblessness springs oppression. We must 
not forget that the seeds of the 1979 Sandinista Revolution in 
Nicaragua sprouted from the wreckage of the 1972 Managua earthquake. 
Indeed, it is only now that the old city center is being rebuilt where 
mangled, vacant buildings still stand as witness to Somoza's failed 
dictatorship.
  Mr. President, today Nicaragua faces a new natural disaster--greater 
than that of 1972. The infrastructure in the northern provinces, the 
locus of revolutions throughout this century, is washed away. In 
Honduras, the government is confronted with thousands of miles of roads 
where not one bridge is left undamaged or undestroyed. At the 
devastated banana plantations of Honduras, 12,000 jobs hang in the 
balance. The tax base is non-existent because the businesses that 
provided the jobs are destroyed. The task facing these governments is 
enormous, and the resources to address these problems are meager.
  People who cannot feed their families will turn to any source for 
assistance. Unless we partner with the people of Central America in the 
name of progress, the alternatives are clear. The pressure to emigrate 
to the United States could increase. Colombia's drug traffickers could 
oblige by putting dollars into their hands. And anti-democratic 
elements could use the devastation to serve their self-interests.
  A peasant who has seen his home blown away and his employment gone 
will look for work wherever it is available. We saw a massive upsurge 
in migration during the tumultuous 1980's. The same is beginning to 
happen now. The number of Central Americans detained and expelled at 
Mexico's southern border has doubled recently. Mexican officials worry 
that this increase could be the beginning of a prolonged, large scale 
migration of Central Americans through Mexico to the United States.
  Furthermore, a farmer who has seen his crop destroyed, and the only 
road to his markets washed away, will be liable to support 
revolutionary demagogues who vow convincingly that they can repair it. 
If the current elected governments are unable to repair the roads and 
give temporary assistance, that same farmer could become part of the 
next popular insurgency.
  Central America is full of former revolutionaries who are capable of 
exploiting Mitch's misery to rebuild new insurgencies that will tax the 
resources of the current governments. Promises easily made by fast-
talking demagogues can lead to future problems of the kind that we 
addressed and resolved in the 1980s.
  Mr. President, the challenge we face in Central America remains the 
same as that posed by the Kissinger report: Do we want Central America 
to be our partner in building up a prosperous hemisphere--or a hotbed 
of revolutionary unrest? The choice is not entirely our own, but we 
can--and should--have a huge influence on behalf of freedom, 
prosperity, and stability. We must send an unmistakable signal to our 
Southern neighbors that our regional commitment is not tentative or 
fleeting. The U.S. has to seize the initiative over the long-term 
future of Central America--because if we don't, events will.
  Mr. President, the Central American and Caribbean Relief Act is in 
our economic and national security interests. We must act and we must 
act now.
 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just weeks after the calamity hit 
Central America last year, Senate Majority Leader Lott asked me to lead 
to bipartisan fact-finding mission to the region. The objective of our 
trip was to assess Mitch's impact on the region's economy, priorities 
for U.S. aid, and the potential ramifications of this disaster on 
future trade with the region.
  Senator Frist joined me on this trip. His knowledge of health care 
and medicinal needs was a valuable addition to the trip. We were 
fortunate also to be joined by three individuals form the 
Administration: Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the Honorable Harriet Babbitt, 
Deputy Administrator at USAID, and the Honorable Josh Gotbaum, Office 
of Management and Budget.
  I believe this tour was invaluable to all who participated. First, 
because of what we learned about the region and the devastation caused 
by Mitch. Second, because it expressed the spirit of bipartisanship 
that I hope will carry through in our efforts to help Central Americans 
rebuild and flourish as democratic neighbors.
  As unlikely as it might sound, the ravages of Hurricane Mitch in 
Central America may have a silver lining. But the United States and 
other countries must act quickly and decisively. This is the message we 
heard form Central Americans themselves, as well as relief workers and 
American government officials, when we visited that storm-torn region 
in December. That's also the message I would like to convey to my 
Senate colleagues.
  This relative optimism is remarkable. More than 10,000 lives were 
lost to the storm; 40 percent of the GDP in Nicaragua and Honduras was 
swept away; 3 million persons in the region now live in temporary 
shelters or without shelter at all. And, that's in a region with fewer 
people than the state of California!
  Yet, even those 1,000 persons we saw crowded into a single small 
school, those 104 jammed in a cemetery chapel, agreed that a golden 
moment now exists to move forward in this historically troubled region.
  The response from the United States already has been both effective 
and generous, with the first 30 days of the relief efforts exceeding 
the Berlin airlift. Our 6,000 military personnel have performed 
heroically, in a relatively unheralded but extraordinary operation. The 
military and other agencies delivered two thirds of the world's 
donations already in-region and have helped avoid the disease and 
starvation that usually takes root within a few weeks following such a 
calamity.

[[Page 1889]]

  The response from Central American governments has been heartening, 
too. Don't forget that the United States has worked for more than a 
quarter of a century to help develop democratic movements in this 
region. If we fail to move quickly now, elements that oppose democracy 
could gain a foothold, rendering the sacrifices of money and arms of 
the past 25 years useless. Thus, we were gratified to hear all 
important government agencies and relief groups emphasize over and over 
again, ``We want your help, not forever, but so we can begin to help 
ourselves and continue building stable and democratic societies.''
  As the initial relief phase of the effort comes to a close, and a 
period of reconstruction and rebuilding begins, the United States faces 
some tougher decisions about the nature of our assistance. These 
decisions are not simply whether we help our friends rebuild the 
bridges, houses, roads and towns they lost. We must also decide how we 
assist them in rebuilding the young and fragile institutions which are 
the products of the region's remarkable shift to democracy and 
functioning, growing economies.
  Our policy must first offer debt relief under which these governments 
struggle. Nicaragua's government spends $220 million a year to pay its 
creditors and Honduras pays $341. Freeing up those resources, even 
temporarily, is more valuable to them than a simple infusion of cash.
  Second, we must expeditiously pursue a reasonable option to allow 
these countries to strength mutually beneficial trade relationships. 
Relief and reconstruction are meaningless without an expectation of 
sustaining their benefits through the growth such trade will 
undoubtedly foster.
  Third, we must push the European Union to uphold their promise to aid 
these countries by ending their discrimination against Central American 
bananas and other agricultural exports in favor to those from their 
former colonies.
  Fourth, Central American governments must continue creating 
incentives for new investment and broader credit availability to the 
people through their own domestic legislation and regulation. The began 
on such a path before Mitch, and we must push and assist them in 
redoubling those efforts.
  Finally, the need to rebuild the devastated infrastructure of the 
region cannot be underemphasized. Over 70 percent of the roads in 
Honduras were washed away. Crops cannot be harvested without roads to 
carry the produce. Poor water sanitation has brought about a public 
health nightmare. In addition to the direct assistance, we can offer 
the technology, financing and expertise at a level which these 
countries simply do not have at their disposal.
  In pursuit of these goals, we commend the Administration for acting 
quickly and for using their authority to reprogram already enacted 
funds for the relief efforts. However, we must remember that the work 
is not done when the news cameras move to the next story, and a 
sustained, bipartisan effort with Congress will be required. This bill 
builds on the bipartisan necessary to formulate effective assistance to 
our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean.
  Carinal Obando y Bravo of Nicaragua best summed up for us the hope of 
the Central American people. Over 30 years they lived through natural 
disasters, wars, totalitarian governments, and now Mitch. Like before, 
he said the people will ``rise like a phoenix form the ashes.'' If we 
are committed and resourceful in that shared goal, we can help 
guarantee that the mythical image is not simply a myth.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 372. A bill to make available funds under the Freedom Support Act 
to expand existing educational and professional exchanges with the 
Russian Federation to promote and strengthen democratic government and 
civil society in that country, and to make available funds under that 
Act to conduct a study of the feasibility of creating a new foundation 
toward that end; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


             russian democratization assistance act of 1999

   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation 
designed to assist the transition to democracy, a free-market economy, 
and civil society in the Russian Federation.
  Mr. President, the Russian Federation, which is currently undergoing 
severe political and economic crises, continues to possess thousands of 
nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. If for no other reason, 
therefore, maintaining stability in Russia remains a vital national 
security concern of the United States.
  I have stated in detail on earlier occasions my belief that for the 
foreseeable future the time has passed for massive infusions of 
economic assistance to Russia. Since the collapse of Soviet communism, 
the capitalist world has injected into Russia more than one hundred 
billion dollars in grants, loans, and credits. Ultimately, however, the 
Russians themselves must take responsibility for putting their own 
economic house in order.
  With few exceptions, future American economic assistance to Russia 
should be predicated upon a systematic reform of its economic, tax, and 
criminal justice systems, and in greatly reducing the corruption that 
plagues nearly every facet of Russian life.
  The one exception I mentioned last summer was emergency food 
assistance to forestall starvation during the brutal Russian winter. I 
am happy that the Administration under the lead of Secretary of 
Agriculture Glickman has embarked upon just such a rescue program.
  But, Mr. President, in the absence of basic, large-scale economic 
aid, we must search for other means to assist Russia in its painful 
transition to democracy and free-enterprise capitalism.
  We are often mesmerized by current problems. So it is important to 
remember that since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 
1991, the Russian Federation has, in fact, made significant progress in 
democratizing its government and society.
  Building upon that progress, the continued development of democratic 
institutions and practice can, Mr. President, help to foster the 
stability in the Russian Federation that is squarely in America's 
national interest.
  Educational and professional exchanges with the Russian Federation 
have proven to be an effective, and remarkably low-cost, mechanism for 
enhancing democratization in that country. Moreover, these exchanges 
hold the promise of long-term, lasting pay-offs as the exchange 
participants move into positions of responsibility in public and 
private life.
  With that in mind, Mr. President, I am introducing the Russian 
Democratization Assistance Act of 1999.
  Recognizing that maintaining stability in the Russian Federation is a 
vital national security concern of the United States, this legislation 
authorizes the expansion of selected, already existing educational and 
professional exchanges with that country and authorizes a study of the 
feasibility of a Russia-based, internationally funded Foundation for 
Democracy.
  Specifically, the legislation increases authorization for each of 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for several programs with the 
Russian Federation that have a proven track-record of excellence. My 
colleagues will note the unusually low amounts of funding involved in 
each of these programs.
  The annual authorization for the Russian portion of the Future 
Leaders Exchange Program, popularly known as the Bradley Scholarships 
after former Senator Bradley of New Jersey who sponsored the original 
legislation creating the program under the Freedom Support Act, will be 
increased to four million dollars from its current level of just over 
two million dollars. I am proud to have co-sponsored this program at 
its inception.
  Under the Future Leaders Exchange Program, high school students from 
the former Soviet Union are selected in national, merit-based, open 
competitions to live for one academic year in the United States with a 
host family and to study at an American high school.

[[Page 1890]]

  The United States Information Agency, now to be merged with the 
Department of State, works with two non-profit organizations--the 
American Council of Teachers of Russian and Youth for Understanding--on 
the recruitment, selection, orientation, and travel of the foreign 
students, and with twelve youth exchange organizations around our 
country in their placement and monitoring. Alumni are encouraged to 
join organizations when they return home and to participate in follow-
on activities coordinated by these two American organizations.
  Mr. President, the Future Leaders Exchange is universally recognized 
as a huge success. And what an investment.
  Annual authorized funding for the Russian portion of the Freedom 
Support Act Undergraduate Program would be increased to three million 
dollars from its current one-and-a-third million. In this program, 
foreign undergraduates are selected for one year of non-degree study in 
American universities, colleges, or community colleges in a variety of 
fields, including agriculture, business administration, communications 
and journalism, computer science, criminal justice studies, economics, 
education, environmental management, government, library and 
information sciences, public policy, and sociology.
  The American Council of Teachers of Russian, and Youth for 
Understanding administer this program for the United States Government.
  Another outstanding, highly relevant, program within the Freedom 
Support Act whose scope this legislation would increase is the 
Community Connections Program. The annual authorized funding for its 
Russian component would rise to fifteen million dollars from its 
current level of seven million.
  In the Community Connections Program, entrepreneurs, local government 
officials, education officials, legal professionals, and non-
governmental organization leaders are offered three-to-five week 
practical training opportunities in the United States. Forty local 
communities across this country host the participants, thereby creating 
grass-roots linkages between the United States and regions of Russia, 
which may enhance opportunities for exchanges to be sustained beyond 
the life of the assistance program.
  A very small but highly topical program that my legislation would 
expand is the Freedom Support Act Fellowships in Contemporary Issues. 
The Russian component of this program currently receives only $370,000. 
This act would nearly triple that annual authorization to one million 
dollars.
  Under the Contemporary Issues Program, government officials, leaders 
of non-governmental organizations, and private sector professionals 
from Russia receive three-month fellowships in the United States for 
research in several strategic areas. These include sustainable growth 
and development of economies in transition; democracy, human rights, 
and the rule of law; and the communications revolution and intellectual 
property rights.
  This program is administered through a grant awarded to the 
International Research and Exchanges Board, an organization with 
decades of experience in exchanges with Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union.
  Finally, my legislation would greatly strengthen the Edmund S. Muskie 
Fellowship Program, named after our esteemed former colleague from 
Maine who later served the nation as Secretary of State. Annual 
authorized funding for the Russian portion of this program would rise 
to seven million dollars from its current level of nearly three-and-
three-quarter million dollars.
  Muskie Fellows receive fellowships for one-to-two years of graduate 
study at American universities in business administration, economics, 
law, or public administation. The program is administered by the 
American Council of Teachers of Russian and the American Council for 
Collaboration in Education and Language Study.
  The Muskie Fellowship Program is particularly important, since it 
gives the next generation of Russian professors on-site exposure to 
American scholarship and American society. The so-called ``multiplier 
effect'' that these professors will have upon their students will last 
for decades.
  Mr. President, the sum total authorization for these five innovative 
and highly successful exchange programs is only thirty million dollars 
per fiscal year. The benefits in enhancing democratization in Russia 
and in promoting Russian-American relations are significant. It is an 
investment in the future that we should make.
  Mr. President, the second part of this legislation concerns a grant 
of fifty thousand dollars to conduct a feasibility study of a Russia-
based, internationally funded foundation for democracy.
  The assassination last November in St. Petersburg of Galina 
Starovoitova, a former Member of the State Duma and Russia's most 
prominent female politician, was universally perceived as a defining 
moment. Starovoitova's murder, as yet unsolved, is seen as symptomatic 
of the growing power of organized crime and nationalist and communist 
extremists to undermine the foundations of the fragile Russian 
democracy.
  The shock of the assassination had not yet worn off when friends and 
admirers of Starovoitova around the world spontaneously began to 
consider ways to create something positive from the horror. Several 
individuals including Carl Gershman, President of the U.S. National 
Endowment for Democracy, and Michael McFaul, a Stanford professor who 
worked in Moscow for the Carnegie Endowment, have proposed creating a 
Russian democracy foundation in Starovoitova's name.
  This Starovoitova foundation would be a non-governmental, non-
partisan, strictly Russian but internationally funded center for the 
study and promotion of democratic practices. Its work would involve 
public education in a country where democracy increasingly is equated 
with crime, insider privatization, and mass poverty. The Starovoitova 
foundation could also train democratic activists for governmental and 
non-governmental service. Moreover, it might serve, in Professor 
McFaul's words, as a ``kind of Russian Civil Liberties Union,'' helping 
citizens defend their constitutional rights.
  I have reason to believe that the Starovoitova foundation would find 
broad support within Russia and be able to attract funding from several 
other democratic countries around the world.
  In a well-known phrase, Weimar Germany failed not because it had too 
many enemies, but because there were too few democrats. Weimar's tragic 
end need not be repeated in Russia. Galina Starovoitova's murder 
already has motivated record numbers of voters to turn out for 
municipal elections in St. Petersburg with strong support for the 
democratic parties. The Starovoitova Foundation for Democracy could 
maintain this momentum, even as it memorializes a courageous 
politician.
  The planning grant I am proposing would authorize the United States 
Government to engage an organization specializing in the study of 
Russia to investigate the depth and breadth of support for such an 
institution and, if there is the requisite support, the best way to 
proceed with organizing the foundation.
  Mr. President, the Russian Democratization Assistance Act of 1999 is 
a targeted response to assist the Russian Federation as it struggles to 
move away from the legacy of seven decades of communist tyranny and 
misrule. It recognizes that Russia's problems are too large and too 
complex to be amenable to instant solutions. But by significantly 
expanding educational and professional exchanges with Russia, and by 
taking the first steps toward the creation of a foundation for 
democracy there, this legislation can make an important long-term 
contribution to democracy and stability.
  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. 372

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

[[Page 1891]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Russian Democratization 
     Assistance Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Russian Federation, which is currently undergoing 
     severe political and economic crises, continues to possess 
     thousands of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them.
       (2) Maintaining stability in Russia is a vital national 
     security concern of the United States.
       (3) Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 
     1991, the Russian Federation has made significant progress in 
     democratizing its government and society.
       (4) The continued development of democratic institutions 
     and practice will foster stability in the Russian Federation.
       (5) Educational and professional exchanges with the Russian 
     Federation have proven to be an effective mechanism for 
     enhancing democratization in that country.

     SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

       It shall be the policy of the United States toward the 
     Russian Federation--
       (1) to promote and strengthen democratic government and 
     civil society;
       (2) to expand already existing educational and professional 
     exchanges toward those ends; and
       (3) to consider the feasibility of a Russia-based, 
     internationally funded Foundation for Democracy to further 
     democratic government and civil society.

     SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR INTERNATIONAL INFORMATIONAL 
                   AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES WITH THE RUSSIAN 
                   FEDERATION.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.; relating to support for the 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union) for each of 
     the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the following amounts are 
     authorized to be available for the following programs with 
     the Russian Federation:
       (1) For the ``Future Leaders Exchange'', $4,000,000.
       (2) For the ``Freedom Support Act Undergraduate Program'', 
     $3,000,000.
       (3) For the ``Community Connections Program'', $15,000,000.
       (4) For the ``Freedom Support Act Fellowships in 
     Contemporary Issues'', $1,000,000.

     SEC. 5. STUDY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY 
                   FOUNDATION.

       (a) In General.--The President is authorized to conduct a 
     study of the feasibility of establishing a foundation for the 
     promotion of democratic institutions in the Russian 
     Federation.
       (b) Foundation Title.--It is the sense of Congress that any 
     foundation established pursuant to subsection (a) should be 
     known as the Starovoitova Foundation for Russian Democracy, 
     in honor of Galina Starovoitova, a former member of the State 
     Duma and Russia's leading female politician who was 
     assassinated in St. Petersburg in November 1998.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.; relating to 
     support for the independent states of the former Soviet 
     Union) for fiscal year 2000, $50,000 is authorized to be 
     available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MUSKIE 
                   FELLOWSHIPS WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the President $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     and 2001 to carry out the Edmund S. Muskie Fellowship Program 
     under section 227 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2452 note) with the 
     Russian Federation.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 373. A bill to prohibit the acquisition of products produced by 
forced or indentured child labor; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


               the indentured child labor prevention act

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 
of S. 373, the Forced and Indentured Child Labor Prevention Act, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 373

       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 ``Forced and Indentured Child 
     Labor Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY 
                   FORCED OR INDENTURED CHILD LABOR.

       (a) Prohibition.--The head of an executive agency (as 
     defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) may 
     not acquire an item that appears on a list published under 
     subsection (b) unless the source of the item certifies to the 
     head of the executive agency that forced or indentured child 
     labor was not used to mine, produce, or manufacture the item.
       (b) Publication of List of Prohibited Items.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of 
     State, shall publish in the Federal Register every other year 
     a list of items that such officials have identified that 
     might have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or 
     indentured child labor.
       (2) Date of publication.--The first list shall be published 
     under paragraph (1) not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Required Contract Clauses.--
       (1) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     include in each solicitation of offers for a contract for the 
     procurement of an item included on a list published under 
     subsection (b) the following clauses:
       (A) A clause that requires the contractor to certify to the 
     contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an 
     incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the 
     contractor has made a good faith effort to determine whether 
     forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, 
     or manufacture any item furnished under the contract and 
     that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is 
     unaware of any such use of child labor.
       (B) A clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate 
     fully to provide access for the head of the executive agency 
     or the inspector general of the executive agency to the 
     contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises if 
     requested by the official for the purpose of determining 
     whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, 
     produce, or manufacture any item furnished under the 
     contract.
       (2) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall apply 
     with respect to acquisitions for a total amount in excess of 
     the micro-purchase threshold (as defined in section 32(f) of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     428(f)), including acquisitions of commercial items for such 
     an amount notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 430).
       (d) Investigations.--Whenever a contracting officer of an 
     executive agency has reason to believe that a contractor has 
     submitted a false certification under subsection (a) or 
     (c)(1)(A) or has failed to provide cooperation in accordance 
     with the obligation imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(B), 
     the head of the executive agency shall refer the matter, for 
     investigation, to the Inspector General of the executive 
     agency and, as the head of the executive agency determines 
     appropriate, to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (e) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--The head of an executive agency may impose 
     remedies as provided in this subsection in the case of a 
     contractor under a contract of the executive agency if the 
     head of the executive agency finds that the contractor--
       (A) has furnished under the contract items that have been 
     mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured 
     child labor or uses forced or indentured child labor in 
     mining, production, or manufacturing operations of the 
     contractor;
       (B) has submitted a false certification under subparagraph 
     (A) of subsection (c)(1); or
       (C) has failed to provide cooperation in accordance with 
     the obligation imposed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of such 
     subsection.
       (2) Termination of contracts.--The head of the executive 
     agency, in the sole discretion of the head of the executive 
     agency, may terminate a contract on the basis of any finding 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Debarment or suspension.--The head of an executive 
     agency may debar or suspend a contractor from eligibility for 
     Federal contracts on the basis of a finding that the 
     contractor has engaged in an act described in paragraph 
     (1)(A). The period of the debarment or suspension may not 
     exceed 3 years.
       (4) Inclusion on list.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall include on the List of Parties Excluded from 
     Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs (maintained 
     by the Administrator as described in the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation) each person that is debarred, suspended, proposed 
     for debarment or suspension, or declared ineligible by the 
     head of an executive agency or the Comptroller General on the 
     basis that the person uses forced or indentured child labor 
     to mine, produce, or manufacture any item.
       (5) Other remedies.--This subsection shall not be construed 
     to limit the use of other remedies available to the head of 
     an executive agency or any other official of the Federal 
     Government on the basis of a finding described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (f) Report.--Each year, the Administrator of General 
     Services, with the assistance of the heads of other executive 
     agencies, shall review the actions taken under this section 
     and submit to Congress a report on those actions.
       (g) Implementation in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--

[[Page 1892]]

       (1) In general.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     be revised within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act--
       (A) to provide for the implementation of this section; and
       (B) to include the use of forced or indentured child labor 
     in mining, production, or manufacturing as a cause on the 
     lists of causes for debarment and suspension from contracting 
     with executive agencies that are set forth in the regulation.
       (2) Publication.--The revisions of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall be published in the Federal Register 
     promptly after the final revisions are issued.
       (h) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall not apply to a contract 
     that is for the procurement of any product, or any article, 
     material, or supply contained in a product, that is mined, 
     produced, or manufactured in any foreign country or 
     instrumentality, if--
       (A) the foreign country or instrumentality is--
       (i) a party to the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     annexed to the WTO Agreement; or
       (ii) a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement; 
     and
       (B) the contract is of a value that is equal to or greater 
     than the United States threshold specified in the Agreement 
     on Government Procurement annexed to the WTO Agreement or the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement, whichever is applicable.
       (2) WTO agreement.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``WTO Agreement'' means the Agreement Establishing the 
     World Trade Organization, entered into on April 15, 1994.
       (i) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c)(2), 
     the requirements of this section apply on and after the date 
     determined under paragraph (2) to any solicitation that is 
     issued, any unsolicited proposal that is received, and any 
     contract that is entered into by an executive agency pursuant 
     to such a solicitation or proposal on or after such date.
       (2) Date.--The date referred to is paragraph (1) is the 
     date that is 30 days after the date of the publication of the 
     revisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation under 
     subsection (g)(2).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 374. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health 
coverage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


           THE PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE MANAGED CARE ACT OF 1999

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined this 
morning by Senators Graham, Lieberman, Specter, Baucus, Robb and Bayh 
in introducing the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999.'' 
In introducing our bill from last year, we are especially pleased to 
have Senators Robb and Bayh join us as original cosponsors.
  As you know, the Senate was unable to consider this important issue 
before the close of the 105th Congress. Nonetheless, each party 
developed and introduced legislation, and the House actually passed a 
bill proposed by the Republican majority. To encourage discussion 
across the aisle, this group of Senators introduced a bipartisan reform 
bill--the only one thus far.
  In crafting our legislation, we omitted or modified those provisions 
which were anathema to either side. Thus, for example, we excluded 
Medical Savings Accounts, a feature of the Senate Republican Task Force 
bill, because this provision is a non-starter with Democrats. Likewise, 
we proposed allowing injured parties to seek redress in federal court 
as an alternative to the state court provision in the Democratic bill 
because that is a non-starter with Republicans.
  Well, here it is, the 106th Congress. Why have the prospects 
brightened for legislation to improve the quality of managed care? 
First, voters sent a clear message on election day: they want action, 
not gridlock. Second, the Democrats gained five more seats in the 
House--the very margin by which that body rejected the ``Patient Bill 
of Rights'' last year. Third, both Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority 
Leader Lott have instructed their respective committees of jurisdiction 
to get down to work. Fourth, the President is anxious to begin a 
bipartisan dialogue.
  Perhaps more important than any of these developments, though, is the 
fact that consumers want assurances they will actually get the medical 
care they need, when they need it. Regrettably, many have learned this 
is not always the case.
  The opponents of reform have had a field day mischaracterizing what 
the managed care quality debate is about. It is not, as they allege, 
about erasing the gains managed care has made in bringing down costs 
and coordinating patient services. It is not about forcing plans to 
cover unnecessary, outmoded or harmful practices. Nor is it about 
forcing plans to pay for any service or treatment which is not a 
covered benefit. And, it is certainly not about giving doctors a blank 
check.
  In fact, this debate is about making sure patients get what they pay 
for. It's about ensuring that patients receive medically necessary 
care; that an objective standard and credible medical evidence are used 
to guide physicians and insurers in making treatment and coverage 
determinations; that patients' medical records and the judgments of 
their physicians are given due consideration; and, that managed care 
plans do not base their medical decisions on practice guidelines 
developed by industry actuaries, but rather credible, independent, 
scientific bodies.
  On a more tangible level, this legislation is about making sure that 
the infant suffering from chronic ear infections is fitted with 
drainage tubes--rather than being prescribed yet another round of 
ineffective antibiotics--to ameliorate the condition and prevent 
hearing loss. It is about making sure that the patient with a broken 
hip is not relegated to a wheelchair in perpetuity, but rather given 
the hip replacement surgery and physical therapy that prudent medical 
practice dictates.
  Make no mistake about it: Without provisions to ensure that plans are 
held to the objective, time-tested standard of professional medical 
practice, federal legislation giving patients access to an external 
appeals process will be nothing more than a false promise.
  The ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act'' would restore needed 
balance to our managed care system while preserving its benefits. 
Moreover, it would do so using the very same framework established by 
Congress with the enactment of the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy law in 
1996. That statute--which extends portability and guaranteed issue 
protections to patients--has two very important benefits. First, it 
applies to all privately insured Americans--not just those 48 million 
enrolled in self-funded ERISA plans. Second, it preserves states' 
rights to occupy the field if they so choose.
  Thus, our bill would establish a minimum floor of federal patient 
protections for all 161 million privately insured Americans. Yet, it 
would also protect state authority to go beyond this federal floor, and 
would preserve the good work states have already undertaken in this 
area. It would also encourage states which have taken little or no 
action to do the right thing. Despite the flurry of activity, only 15 
states have adopted the most basic patient protection--an external 
review procedure.
  As the process moves ahead, we look forward to working with the 
Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee to formulate legislation which will help to restore consumer 
confidence in managed care, and to ensure that patients receive all 
medically necessary and appropriate care.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents 
be printed in the Record: a summary of the bill, a one-page description 
of our enforcement provisions, a three-page document on what national 
health organizations say about our bill, and a white paper entitled, 
``Medical Necessity: The Real Issue in the Quality Debate.''
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999


                               principles

       Today, a majority of the U.S. population is enrolled in 
     some form of managed care--a

[[Page 1893]]

     system which has enabled employers, insurers and taxpayers to 
     achieve significant savings in the delivery of health care 
     services. However, there is growing anxiety among many 
     Americans that insurance health plan accountants--not 
     doctors--are determining what services and treatments they 
     receive. Congress has an opportunity to enact legislation 
     this year which will ensure that patients receive the 
     benefits and services to which they are entitled, without 
     compromising the savings and coordination of care that can be 
     achieved through managed care. However, to ensure the most 
     effective result, legislation must embody the following 
     principles:
       It must be bipartisan and balanced.
       It must offer all 161 million privately insured Americans--
     not just those in self-funded ERISA plans--a floor of basic 
     federal patient protections.
       It must include an objective standard of what constitutes 
     medically necessary or appropriate care to ensure a 
     meaningful external appeals process. Furthermore, that 
     standard must be informed by valid and reliable evidence to 
     support the treatment and coverage determinations made by 
     providers and plans.
       It must establish credible federal enforcement remedies to 
     ensure that managed care plans play by the rules and that 
     individuals harmed by such entities are justly compensated.
       It should encourage managed care plans to compete on the 
     basis of quality--not just price. ``Report card'' information 
     will provide consumers with the information they need to make 
     informed choices based on plan performance.


                                summary

       The ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999'' 
     blends the best features of both the Democratic and 
     Republican plans. The legislation would restore public 
     confidence in managed care through a comprehensive set of 
     policy changes that would apply to all private health plans 
     in the country. These include strengthened federal 
     enforcement to ensure managed care plans play by the rules; 
     compensation for individuals harmed by the decisions of 
     managed care plans; an independent external system for 
     processing complaints and appealing adverse decisions; 
     information requirements to allow competition based on 
     quality; and, a reasonable set of patient protection 
     standards to ensure patients have access to appropriate 
     medical care.
     Scope of protection
       Basic protections for all privately insured Americans. All 
     private insurance plans would be required to meet basic 
     federal patient protections regardless of whether they are 
     regulated at the state or federal level. This approach 
     follows the blueprint established with the enactment of the 
     Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 
     which allows states to build upon a basic framework of 
     federal protections.
     Enforcement and compensation
       Strengthened federal enforcement to ensure managed care 
     plans play by the rules. To ensure compliance with the bill's 
     provisions, current federal law would be strengthened by 
     giving the Secretaries of Labor and Health & Human Services 
     enhanced authorities to enjoin managed care plans from 
     denying medically necessary care and to levy fines (up to 
     $50,000 for individual cases and up to $250,000 for a pattern 
     of wrongful conduct). This provision would ensure that 
     enforcement of federal law is not dependent upon individuals 
     bringing court cases to enforce plan compliance. Rather, it 
     provides for real federal enforcement of new federal 
     protections.
       Compensation for individuals harmed by the decisions of 
     managed care plans. All privately insured individuals would 
     have access to federal courts for economic loss resulting 
     from injury caused by the improper denial of care by managed 
     care plans. Economic loss would be defined as any pecuniary 
     loss caused by the decision of the managed care plan, and 
     would include lost earnings or other benefits related to 
     employment, medical expenses, and business or employment 
     opportunities. Awards for economic loss would be uncapped and 
     attorneys fees could be awarded at the discretion of the 
     court.
     Coverage determination, grievance and appeals
       Coverage determinations. Plans would be required to make 
     decisions as to whether to provide benefits, or payments for 
     benefits, in a timely manner. The plan must have a process 
     for making expedited determinations in cases in which the 
     standard deadlines could seriously jeopardize the patient's 
     life, health, ability to regain or maintain maximum function 
     or (in the case of a child under the age of 6) development
       Internal appeals. Patients would be assured the right to 
     appeal the following: failure to cover emergency services, 
     the denial, reduction or termination of benefits, or any 
     decision regarding the clinical necessity, appropriateness, 
     efficacy, or efficiency of health care services, procedures 
     or settings. The plan would be required to have a timely 
     internal review system, using health care professionals 
     independent of the case at hand, and procedures for 
     expediting decisions in cases in which the standard timeline 
     could seriously jeopardize the covered individual's life, 
     health, ability to regain or maintain maximum function, or 
     (in the case of a child under the age of 6) development.
       External appeals. Individuals would be assured access to an 
     external, independent appeals process for cases of sufficient 
     seriousness or which exceed a certain monetary threshold that 
     were not resolved to the patient's satisfaction through the 
     internal appeals process. The external appeal entity, not the 
     plan, would have the authority to decide whether a particular 
     plan decision is in fact externally appealable. In addition 
     to the patient's medical record and the treating physician's 
     proposed treatment, the range of evidence that is permissible 
     in an external review would include valid and reliable 
     research, studies and other evidence from impartial experts 
     in the relevant field--the same types of evidence typically 
     used by the courts in adjudicating health care quality cases. 
     The external appeal process would require a fair, ``de novo'' 
     determination, the plan would pay the costs of the process, 
     and any decision would be binding on the plan.
     Consumer information
       Comparative information. Consumers would be given uniform 
     comparative information on quality measures in order to make 
     informed choices. Data would include: patient satisfaction, 
     delivery of health care services such as immunizations, and 
     resulting changes in beneficiary health. Variations would be 
     allowed based on plan type.
       Plan information. Patients would be provided with 
     information on benefits, cost-sharing, access to services, 
     grievance and appeals, etc. A grant program would be 
     authorized to provide enrollees with information about their 
     coverage options, and with grievance and appeals processes.
       Confidentiality of enrollee records. Plans would be 
     required to have procedures to safeguard the privacy of 
     individually identifiable information.
       Quality assurance. Plans would be required to establish an 
     internal quality assurance program. Accredited plans would be 
     deemed to have met this requirement, and variations would be 
     allowed based on plan type.
     Patient protection standards
       Emergency services. Coverage of emergency services would be 
     based upon the ``prudent layperson'' standard, and, 
     importantly, would include reimbursement for post-
     stabilization and maintenance care. Prior authorization of 
     services would be prohibited.
       Enrollee choice of health professionals and providers. 
     Patients would be assured that plans would: Allow women to 
     obtain obstetrical/gynecological services without a referral 
     from a primary care provider; allow plan enrollees to choose 
     pediatricians as the primary care provider for their 
     children; have a sufficient number, distribution and variety 
     of providers; allow enrollees to choose any provider within 
     the plan's network, who is available to accept such 
     individual (unless the plan informs enrollee of limitations 
     on choice); provide access to specialists, pursuant to a 
     treatment plan; and in the case of a contract termination, 
     allow continuation of care for a set period of time for 
     chronic and terminal illnesses, pregnancies, and 
     institutional care.
       Access to approved services. Plans would be required to 
     cover routine patient costs incurred through participation in 
     an approved clinical trial. In addition, they would be 
     required to use plan physicians and pharmacists in 
     development of formularies, disclose formulary restrictions, 
     and provide an exception process for non-formulary treatments 
     when medically necessary.
       Nondiscrimination in delivery of services. Discrimination 
     on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability and other 
     characteristics would be prohibited.
       Prohibition of interference with certain medical 
     communications. Plans would be prohibited from using ``gag 
     rules'' to restrict physicians from discussing health status 
     and legal treatment options with patients.
       Provider incentive plans. Plans would be barred from using 
     financial incentives as an inducement to physicians for 
     reducing or limiting the provision of medically necessary 
     services.
       Provider participation. Plans would be required to provide 
     a written description of their physician and provider 
     selection procedures. This process would include a 
     verification of a health care provider's license, and plans 
     would be barred from discriminating against providers based 
     on race, religion and other characteristics.
       Appropriate standards of care for mastectomy patients. 
     Plans would be required to cover the length of hospital stay 
     for a mastectomy, lumpectomy or lymph node dissection that is 
     determined by the physician to be appropriate for the patient 
     and consistent with generally accepted principles of 
     professional medical practice.
       Professional standard of medical necessity. Health plans 
     would be prohibited from arbitrarily interfering with the 
     decision of the treating physician if the services are 
     medically necessary and a covered benefit. Medically 
     necessary services are defined to be those which are 
     consistent with generally accepted principles of professional 
     medical practice. This professional standard of medical 
     necessity has been a well-settled standard in our legal 
     system for over two centuries, and is necessary to ensure a 
     meaningful external appeals process. Treatment and

[[Page 1894]]

     coverage decisions would be measured against the same 
     standard of medical necessity, and providers and insurers 
     would both be guided by the same evidentiary requirements 
     (described under external appeals).
                                  ____


    Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999--Enforcement and 
                        Compensation Mechanisms

       Strengthened federal enforcement to ensure managed care 
     plans play by the rules. To ensure compliance with the bill's 
     provisions, current federal law would be strengthened by 
     giving the Secretaries of Labor and Health & Human Services 
     enhanced authorities to enjoin managed care plans from 
     denying medically necessary care.
       In addition, the Secretaries of Labor and Health & Human 
     Services would be given new authority to levy substantial 
     monetary penalties on managed care plans for wrongful 
     conduct. Fines could be awarded as follows:
       For failures on the part of plans that result in an 
     unreasonable denial or delay in benefits that seriously 
     jeopardize the individual's life, health, or ability to 
     regain or maintain maximum function (or in the case of a 
     child under the age of 6) development: Up to $50,000 for each 
     individual involved in the case of a failure that does not 
     reflect a pattern or practice of wrongful conduct and up to 
     $250,000 if the failure reflects a pattern or practice of 
     wrongful conduct.
       For failures on the part of plans not described above: Up 
     to $10,000 for each individual involved in the case of a 
     failure that does not reflect a pattern or practice of 
     wrongful conduct and up to $50,000 if the failure reflects a 
     pattern or practice of wrongful conduct.
       In the case of failures not corrected within the first 
     week, the maximum amount of the penalties in all cases would 
     be increased by $10,000 for each full succeeding week in 
     which the failure is not corrected.
       These provisions would ensure that enforcement of federal 
     law is not dependent upon individuals bringing court cases to 
     enforce plan compliance. Rather, it provides for real federal 
     enforcement of new federal protections.
       Compensation for individuals harmed by the decisions of 
     managed care plans. All privately insured individuals would 
     have access to federal courts for economic loss resulting 
     from injury caused by the improper denial of care by managed 
     care plans. Economic loss would be defined as any pecuniary 
     loss caused by the decision of the managed care plan, and 
     would include the loss of earnings or other benefits related 
     to employment, medical expenses, and business or employment 
     opportunities. Awards for economic loss would be uncapped and 
     attorneys' fees could be awarded at the discretion of the 
     court.
                                  ____


 What Organizations Are Saying About the Promoting Responsible Managed 
                            Care Act of 1999

       National Association of Children's Hospitals, Inc: ``The 
     National Association of Children's Hospitals, which 
     represents more than 100 children's hospitals across the 
     country, strongly supports your legislation--and its 
     provisions that ensure children's unique health care needs 
     are protected as families seek access to appropriate 
     pediatric health care in their health plans.''
       National Mental Health Association: ``On behalf of the 
     National Mental Health Association and its 330 affiliates 
     nationwide, I am writing to express strong support for the 
     Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999. . . .  NMHA 
     was particularly gratified to learn that you included 
     language in your important compromise legislation which 
     guarantees access to psychotropic medications. . . . 
     Finally--alone among all the managed care bills introduced in 
     this session of Congress--your legislation prohibits the 
     involuntary disenrollment of adults with severe and 
     persistent mental illnesses and children with serious mental 
     and emotional disturbances.''
       National Alliance for the Mentally Ill: ``On behalf of the 
     185,000 members and 1,140 affiliates of the National Alliance 
     for the Mentally Ill, I am writing to express our strong 
     support for the bipartisan managed care consumer protection 
     legislation you . . . are developing. . . . Thank you for 
     your efforts on behalf of people with severe mental 
     illnesses. Your bipartisan approach to this difficult issue 
     is an important step forward in placing the interests of 
     consumers and families ahead of politics. NAMI looks forward 
     to working with you to ensure passage of meaningful managed 
     care consumer protection legislation in the 106th Congress.''
       American Protestant Health Alliance: ``Your proposal 
     strikes a balance which is most appropriate. As each of us is 
     aware, often we have missed the opportunity to enact health 
     policy changes, only to return later and achieve fewer gains 
     than we might have earlier. It would be tragic if we allowed 
     this year's opportunity to escape our grasp. We are pleased 
     to stand with you in support of your proposal.''
       American Academy of Pediatrics: ``As experts in the care of 
     children, we believe that [your] legislation makes important 
     strides toward ensuring that children get the medical 
     attention they need and deserve. . . . Children are not 
     little adults. Their care should be provided by physician 
     specialists who are appropriately educated in the unique 
     physical and developmental issues surrounding the care of 
     infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. We are 
     particularly pleased that you recognize this and have 
     included access to appropriate pediatric specialists, as well 
     as other protections for children, as key provisions of your 
     legislation.''
       American Cancer Society: ``. . . I commend you on your 
     bipartisan effort to craft patient protection legislation 
     that meets the needs of cancer patients under managed care. . 
     . . Your legislation grants patients access to specialists, 
     ensures continuity of care . . . and permits for specialists 
     to serve as the primary care physician for a patient who is 
     undergoing treatment for a serious or life-threatening 
     illness. Most importantly, your bill promotes access to 
     clinical trials for patients for whom satisfactory treatment 
     is not available or standard therapy has not proven most 
     effective. . . . We appreciate that your bill addresses all 
     four of ACS' priorities in a way that will help assure that 
     individuals affected or potentially affected by cancer will 
     be assured improved access to quality care.''
       American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal 
     Medicine: ``We believe your bill contains necessary patient 
     protections, as well as provisions designed to foster quality 
     improvement, and therefore has the potential to improve the 
     quality of care patients receive. The College is particularly 
     pleased that your proposal covers all Americans, rather than 
     only those individuals who are insured by large employers 
     under ERISA. . . . We also appreciate that you have taken 
     steps to address the concerns about making all health plans . 
     . . accountable in a court of law for medical decisions that 
     may result in death or injury to a patient.''
       National Association of Chain Drug Stores: ``. . . we 
     applaud your efforts . . . in crafting a bipartisan managed 
     care proposal. . . . Your bill, `Promoting Responsible 
     Managed Care Act' takes a realistic step in improving the 
     health care system for all Americans.''
       Council of Jewish Federations: ``Your provisions on 
     continuity of care also provide landmark protections for 
     consumers in our community and in the broader community as 
     well. Overall, your legislation provides important safeguards 
     for consumers and providers that are involved in managed 
     care.''
       Families USA: ``We are pleased that your bill . . . would 
     establish many protections important to consumers, such as 
     access to specialists, prescription drugs and consumer 
     assistance. In addition, your external appeals language 
     addresses many consumer concerns in this area.''
       Catholic Health Association: ``The Catholic Health 
     Association of the United States (CHA) applauds your 
     bipartisan leadership in Congress to help enact legislation 
     this year protecting consumers who receive health care 
     through managed care plans. The Chafee-Graham-Lieberman bill 
     is a sound piece of legislation.''
       National Association of Community Health Centers: ``We 
     appreciate the bipartisan efforts you have undertaken to 
     correct the deficiencies in the managed care system. . . . We 
     applaud your inclusion of standards for the determination of 
     medical necessity (Section 102) that are based on generally 
     accepted principles of medical practice. . . . We also 
     appreciate your inclusion of federally qualified health 
     centers (FQHCs) as providers that may be included in the 
     network.''
       American College of Emergency Physicians: ``The American 
     College of Emergency Physicians . . . is pleased to support 
     your bill, the `Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 
     1999.' We . . . are particularly pleased that your 
     legislation would apply to all private insurance plans. . . . 
     We also commend your leadership in proposing a bipartisan 
     solution. . . . We strongly support provisions in the bill 
     that would prevent health plans from denying patients 
     coverage for legitimate emergency services.''
       National Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems: 
     ``This legislation provides consumers with the information to 
     make informed decisions about their managed care plans, 
     offers consumers protections from disincentives to provide 
     care, and provides consumers with meaningful claims review, 
     appeals and grievance procedures. We applaud your leadership 
     in this area and we look forward to working with you to shape 
     final legislation. We note that many of the patient 
     protections contained in your legislation are already 
     applicable to [Medicaid and Medicare], and we believe that a 
     nationwide level playing field is desirable for all patients 
     and all payers. For these reasons . . . we believe that many 
     of the consumer protections in your legislation are necessary 
     to prevent abuses and improve quality in managed care.''
       Mental Health Liaison Group (14 national organizations): 
     ``. . . we are writing to commend you for the introduction of 
     [your legislation]. [It] takes a significant step forward in 
     protecting children and adults with mental disorders who are 
     now served by managed care health plans. . . . By 
     establishing a clear grievance and appeals process, assuring 
     access to mental health specialists, and assuring the 
     availability of emergency services, your bill begins to 
     establish the consumer protections necessary for the delivery

[[Page 1895]]

     of quality mental health care to every American.''
                                  ____


      Medical Necessity: The Real Issue in the Quality Debate \1\


                                 ISSUE

       Without an objective standard of what constitutes medically 
     necessary or appropriate care, federal legislation to ensure 
     that patients receive the care for which they have paid will 
     not be effective. For example, absent such a standard, what 
     measures would an external appeals body use in determining 
     whether a treatment or coverage decision was appropriate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ This paper was adapted from two sources. The first is an 
     article which appeared in the New England Journal of 
     Medicine, January 21, 1999, titled, ``Who Should Determine 
     When Health Care Is Medically Necessary?'' authored by Sara 
     Rosenbaum, J.D., George Washington University School of 
     Public Health and Health Services, David M. Frankford, J.D., 
     Rutgers University School of Law, Brad Moore, M.D., M.P.H., 
     and Phyllis Borzi, J.D., George Washington University Medical 
     Center. The second source is a special analysis of recent 
     ERISA coverage decisions prepared by professor Rosenbaum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Thus, federal legislation should incorporate the 
     professional standard of medical necessity. This has been a 
     well-settled standard in our legal system for over two 
     centuries, and is commonly defined as ``a service or benefit 
     consistent with generally accepted principles of professional 
     medical practice.'' In fact, many insurance contracts in 
     force today include some version of this standard (see 
     attached table).


                               BACKGROUND

       The advent of managed care has blurred the lines between 
     coverage and treatment decisions, since for all but the 
     wealthiest Americans, an insurer's decision regarding 
     coverage effectively determines whether the individual will 
     receive care.
       As a consequence, the quality of coverage decisions, that 
     is to say--the standard used to decide a coverage question 
     and the evidence considered in deciding whether the care that 
     is sought meets the standard--becomes the central issue in 
     the managed care debate.
       As insurers began to move significantly into the coverage 
     decision-making arena in the 1970s, they adopted the same 
     standard used by the courts in adjudicating health care 
     quality cases--the professional standard of medical 
     necessity.


                       TRENDS IN THE MARKETPLACE

       A review of recent cases (see attached table) suggests that 
     while most insurers use this professional standard, some are 
     beginning to write other standards into their contracts. 
     Courts must abide by these standards unless they conflict 
     with other statutes.
       There are also indications that some insurers may be 
     seeking, by contract, to limit the evidence they will 
     consider in making their coverage determinations, instead 
     relying only on the results of generalized studies (some of 
     which may be of questionable value) that have some, but not 
     conclusive, bearing on a given patient's case.
       The cases also indicate that some insurers are attempting 
     to make their decisions unreviewable by using terms such as, 
     ``as determined by us.''
       The result of these trends is arbitrary decision-making 
     (based either on bad evidence, or no evidence at all) which, 
     by failing to take into account individual patient needs, 
     diminishes health care quality, and does not constitute good 
     professional practice.
       It is not possible for consumers to see these contracts 
     under normal circumstances. However, when individuals 
     challenge denials of coverage or treatment, contract clauses 
     affecting millions of persons become public as part of the 
     court decision.
       A close examination of the contract provisions in the 
     attached cases reveals, in some instances, the use of 
     extraordinary standards that pose a significant departure 
     from the professional standard of practice:
       In Fuja, Bedrick, Heasley, and McGraw, all of the contracts 
     underlying these cases omit coverage for ``conditions.'' 
     Prudent medical professionals would not deny care for 
     conditions, nor is it likely that there are any scientific 
     studies which indicate that treatment of children and adults 
     with ``conditions'' such as cerebal palsy, multiple 
     sclerosis, or a developmental or congenital health problem, 
     is not ``medically necessary.''
       In Metrahealth, the contract requires a showing that care 
     be ``absolutely essential and indispensable'' prior to its 
     coverage. This verges on an emergency coverage definition and 
     is at odds with the approach taken by prudent medical 
     professionals.
       In Dowden, use of the term ``essential'' achieves a similar 
     result.
       In Dahl-Elmers, the contract requires a showing that the 
     care ``could not have been omitted without adversely 
     affecting the insured person's condition or the quality of 
     medical care.'' It is doubtful there are any scientific 
     studies that demonstrate how much care can be withheld before 
     a patient deteriorates. In fact, such a study would be 
     unethical even to undertake. Thus, there is virtually no 
     scientific evidence to support denial of coverage under this 
     standard.
       The standards employed in these contracts are in complete 
     conflict with prudent medical practice by health 
     professionals who rely on solid evidence of effectiveness. No 
     reasonable physician would withhold treatment until a 
     patient's condition satisfied any one of these standards.
       These cases deal implicitly with the issue made explicit in 
     Harris v. Mutual of Omaha, which is discussed in the New 
     England Journal of Medicine article from which this paper was 
     adapted. Specifically, because such contracts do not contain 
     any evidentiary standards to inform purchasers of what 
     constitutes reasonable medical practice, insurers are 
     effectively free to use or disregard the evidence of their 
     choosing. This freedom to ignore relevant evidence, such as 
     the opinion of treating physicians, goes to the heart of 
     Harris.


                            RECOMMENDATIONS

       Because coverage standards and evidence are absolutely 
     central, albeit poorly understood concepts, protecting 
     against the diminution of quality of care should not be left 
     to the marketplace. Neither consumers, nor employee benefit 
     managers, have the expertise to recognize the implications of 
     the language which appears in these contracts.
       In light of these trends and their impact on health care 
     quality, federal legislation should incorporate the 
     professional standard of medical necessity as the framework 
     against which a patient's medical care will be decided.
       In addition, the legislation should specify the types of 
     evidence that will be considered in determining whether the 
     professional standard has been met in treatment and coverage 
     decisions. In addition to the patient's medical record and 
     the treating physician's proposed treatment, the courts have 
     typically relied upon valid and reliable research, studies 
     and other evidence from impartial experts in the relevant 
     field.
       Thus, enacting the professional standard of medical 
     necessity into federal law would balance the interests of 
     patients, providers and insurers. Treatment and coverage 
     decisions would be measured against the same standard of 
     medical necessity, and providers and insurers would both be 
     guided by the same evidentiary requirements.
                                  ____


    EXAMPLES OF MEDICAL NECESSITY CLAUSES IN EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT
                                CONTRACTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Contractual definition of medical
             Case name                            necessity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends Hospital v. MetraHealth     ``A health care facility admission,
 Service Corp., 9 F. Supp.2d 528     level of care, procedure, service
 (E.D. Penn. 1998).                  or supply is medically necessary if
                                     it is absolutely essential and
                                     indispensable for assuring the
                                     health and safety of the patient as
                                     determined by the * * * plan * * *
                                     with review and advice of competent
                                     medical professionals.''
McGraw v. Prudential Ins. Co. of    ``To be considered `needed', a
 America, 137 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir.   service or supply must be
 1998).                              determined by Prudential to meet
                                     all of these tests:
                                      (a) It is ordered by a Doctor
                                      (b) It is recognized throughout
                                       the Doctor's profession as safe
                                       and effective, is required for
                                       the diagnosis or treatment of the
                                       particular sickness or Injury,
                                       and is employed appropriately in
                                       a manner and setting consistent
                                       with generally accepted United
                                       States medical standards.
                                      (c) It is neither Educational nor
                                       Experimental nor Investigational
                                       in nature.''
Gates v. King & Blue Cross & Blue   ``The Plan defines medically
 Shield of Virginia, Inc., 129       necessary as: Services, drugs,
 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1997).          supplies, or equipment provided by
                                     a hospital or covered provider of
                                     health care services that the
                                     carrier determines:
                                      (a) are appropriate to diagnose or
                                       treat the patient's condition,
                                       illness or injury;
                                      (b) are consistent with standards
                                       of good medical practice in the
                                       U.S.
                                      (c) are not primarily for the
                                       personal comfort or convenience
                                       of the patient, the family, or
                                       the provider
Dowden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield  Services that are ``essential to,
 of Texas, Inc., 126 F.3d 641 (5th   consistent with and provided for
 Cir. 1997).                         the diagnosis or the direct care
                                     and treatment of the condition,
                                     sickness, disease, injury, or
                                     bodily malfunction,'' and
                                     treatments ``consistent with
                                     accepted standards of medical
                                     practice.''
Bedrick v. Travelers Ins. Co., 93   1. Services that are appropriate and
 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 1996).           required for the diagnosis or
                                     treatment of the accidental injury
                                     or sickness;
                                      2. It is safe and effective
                                       according to accepted clinical
                                       evidence reported by generally
                                       recognized medical professionals
                                       and publications;
                                      There is not a less intrusive or
                                       more appropriate diagnostic or
                                       treatment alternative that could
                                       have been used in lieu of the
                                       service or supply given.
Florence Nightingale Nursing Svc.,  The services and supplies furnished
 Inc. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of   must ``be appropriate and necessary
 Alabama, 41 F.3d 1476 (11th Cir.    for the symptoms, diagnosis, or
 1995).                              treatment of the Member's
                                     condition, disease, ailment, or
                                     injury; and be provided for the
                                     diagnosis or direct care of
                                     Member's medical condition; and be
                                     in accordance with standards of
                                     good medical practice accepted by
                                     the organized medical community * *
                                     * *
Trustees of the NW Laundry and Dry  1. The treatment must be
 Cleaners Health & Welfare Trust     ``appropriate and consistent with
 Fund v. Burzynski, 27 F.3d 153      the diagnosis (in accord with
 (5th Cir. 1994).                    accepted standards of community
                                     practice).''
                                      2. Treatments ``could not be
                                       omitted without adversely
                                       affecting the covered person's
                                       condition or the quality of
                                       medical care.''

[[Page 1896]]

 
Fuja v. Benefit Trust Life Ins.     Services that are ``required and
 Co., 18 F.3d 1405 (7th Cir. 1994).  appropriate for care of the
                                     Sickness or the Injury; and that
                                     are given in accordance with
                                     generally accepted principles of
                                     medical practices in the U.S. at
                                     the time furnished; and are not
                                     deemed to be experimental,
                                     educational or investigational. . .
Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of    ``Appropriate and necessary for
 Alabama, 10 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir.    treatment of the insured's
 1994).                              condition, provided for the
                                     diagnosis or care of the insured's
                                     condition, in accordance with
                                     standards of good medical practice,
                                     and not solely for the insured's
                                     convenience.''
Heil v. Nationwide Life Inc. Co.,   Services for which there is
 9 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1993).         ``general acceptance by the medical
                                     profession as appropriate for a
                                     covered condition and [that] are
                                     determined safe, effective, and non-
                                     investigational by professional
                                     standards.''
Heasely v. Belden & Blake Corp., 2  Services and procedures ``considered
 F.3d 1249 (3rd Cir. 1993).          necessary to the amelioration of
                                     sickness or injury by generally
                                     accepted standards of medical
                                     practice in the local community.''
Dahl-Eimers v. Mutual of Omaha      (a) ``Appropriate and consistent
 Life Inc. Co., 986 F.2d 1379        with the diagnosis in accord with
 (11th Cir. 1993).                   accepted standards of community
                                     practice;
                                      (b) Not considered experimental;
                                       and
                                      (c) Could not have been omitted
                                       without adversely affecting the
                                       injured person's condition or the
                                       quality of medical
                                       care.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. 
        Akaka):
  S. 375. A bill to create a rural business lending pilot program 
within the U.S. Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Small Business.


                       Rural Business Lending Act

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have in the past brought to the 
attention of the Senate one of the most significant economic problems 
facing Alaska--the underdevelopment of the business sector in the rural 
areas of Alaska. Today I am introducing the Rural Business Lending Act 
to help fix this problem in my state and in Hawaii. Senators Inouye, 
Murkowski, and Akaka join me as cosponsors.
  Many of my colleagues have heard me speak of Alaska's vast size, of 
our lack of a highway system, and of the problems faced by small Alaska 
communities because of their remoteness and because they are islands 
surrounded by a sea of federal land. Our economic problems are in some 
ways more like the problems of third-world countries than the problems 
of towns in the contiguous 48 states. More than 130 Alaska villages and 
communities have populations under 3,000, and almost 80 percent of 
these communities are not connected to any road or highway system. They 
can be reached only by small plane or boat. Many do not have a bank 
branch office or any other lending source.
  The nearest banks--which, even within Alaska are likely to be 
hundreds of miles away--often cannot make loans in rural communities 
due to the cost of servicing the loans, the cost of transportation, 
higher credit risks and other unknown risks, the seasonality of the 
economy, and the collateral limitations inherent to remote real estate. 
Most Alaska villages have few, if any, privately- or independently-
owned small businesses.
  The Rural Business Lending Act would attempt to help with these 
problems. The bill would create a pilot loan guarantee program in 
Alaska and Hawaii administered by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA). The pilot program is modeled after the SBA 7(a) 
program that was in effect prior to changes made in 1995. These changes 
dramatically reduced small business lending by banks and other 
financial institutions in Alaska. Among other things, the changes: (1) 
decreased the portion of a loan that SBA could guarantee under the 7(a) 
Program, from 90 percent of the loan amount down to a sliding scale of 
only up to 80 percent; and (2) increased the guarantee fee for 7(a) 
loans from 2 percent of the loan amount up to a sliding scale of 
between 2 percent and 3.875 percent. Another change was that the SBA 
discontinued servicing loans that have gone into default. This change 
is particularly detrimental in Alaska and Hawaii, because of the 
transportation costs involved in servicing a loan, and in small Alaska 
communities because it is difficult for the employee of a bank branch 
to take action against his neighbor on a loan.
  Before these changes went into effect, the SBA 7(a) lending program 
provided much of the critical financing for rural Alaska businesses. 
For instance, the SBA guaranteed 315 loans totaling $29 million with 
fiscal year 1995 funds--170 of which went to businesses in what we 
consider rural areas of Alaska (generally not on the road system). By 
comparison, the SBA guaranteed only 88 loans in Alaska--and only 48 in 
rural areas--with fiscal year 1998 funds, after the changes had gone 
into effect. The total amount of the loans between fiscal year 1995 and 
fiscal year 1998 decreased by over 60 percent, from $29 million down to 
$10 million. It appears this downward trend is continuing during the 
Fiscal Year 1999 cycle.
  Prior to the changes, the National Bank of Alaska was one of SBA's 
biggest 7(a) lending program participants, having made over 91 loans 
totaling more than $15 million during the fiscal year 1995 cycle. Three 
years later, during the fiscal year 1998 cycle, the National Bank of 
Alaska made no loans under the 7(a) program. There is no question that 
the changes have negatively affected the availability of loan funds and 
credit in rural Alaska and other rural areas.
  The bill I am introducing today is intended to make the 7(a) program 
more viable in the rural parts of Alaska and Hawaii. The Rural Business 
Lending Act would create a 3-year ``Rural Business Lending Program'' in 
the 49th and 50th states that would be similar to 7(a) Program before 
the 1995 changes. It would allow up to 90 percent of loan amounts to be 
guaranteed, cap the guarantee fee at 1 percent, require the SBA to 
service loans on which it honors a guarantee, and allow the SBA to 
waive annual loan fees (one-half of one percent of the outstanding loan 
balance under existing law) if necessary to increase lending. Loans 
under the ``Rural Business Lending Program'' would be available only in 
communities with a population of 9,000 or fewer. The program would be 
required to be administered from the SBA's Alaska and Hawaii offices, 
where the unique characteristics and needs of rural small businesses 
are more likely to be understood. The SBA would be required to report 
to Congress after two years on the effectiveness of the program so that 
consideration could be given to making it permanent or expanding it to 
other areas.
  This legislation will ensure that small businesses in rural Alaska 
and Hawaii have similar access to the national 7(a) Program that other 
small businesses have. The national 7(a) program should not provide 
opportunities only to businesses in urban settings. The changes in the 
Act are intended to revive the SBA 7(a) Program in rural parts of 
Alaska and Hawaii, creating a model that perhaps can be applied more 
broadly in the future. I look forward to working with other Senators on 
the enactment of this legislation that is so critical to small 
businesses in Alaska and Hawaii, and ultimately perhaps, to small 
businesses in rural areas throughout the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
        Brownback, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 376. A bill to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to 
promote competition and privatization in satellite communications, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


    OPEN-MARKET REORGANIZATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF INTERNATIONAL 
                     TELECOMMUNICATIONS (ORBIT) ACT

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International 
Telecommunications (ORBIT)'' bill, an important piece of legislation 
that will modernize our nation's laws and policies regarding the 
provision of international satellite

[[Page 1897]]

communications services. I also thank the help and hard work of my 
colleagues who are original cosponsors of this bill, including the 
Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator 
Brownback, Senator Bryan, Senator Dorgan and Senator Cleland.
  Dramatic technological and marketplace changes have reshaped global 
satellite communications in the thirty-six years since enactment of the 
Communications Satellite Act of 1962. These changes necessitate that we 
update our nation's satellite laws to establish a new policy framework 
for vibrant international satellite communications in the 21st century.
  The bill I introduce today reflects a reasoned and balanced approach 
that will enable more private companies, as opposed to government 
entities, to bring advanced satellite communications service to every 
corner of the globe--including poor, remote and lesser developed 
countries. This bill puts the full weight of the United States squarely 
behind the privatization of INTELSAT, an intergovernmental organization 
embracing 142 countries, which, in turn, will transform the 
international satellite communications marketplace into a more robust 
and genuinely competitive arena. The beneficiaries of this legislation 
will be American companies and their workers who will have new 
opportunities to offer satellite communications services worldwide and 
consumers who will be able to enjoy a choice among multiple service 
providers of ever more advanced communications services at lower cost.
  When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States 
responded immediately and aggressively to recapture the lead in the 
advancement of satellite technology. Our nation understood the 
tremendous potential of satellite technology, but at the same time 
recognized that because of the cost, risk and uncertainty, no 
individual company would develop it alone. Therefore, the U.S. enacted 
the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 which created COMSAT, a 
private company, to develop by itself, or presumably with the 
assistance of other foreign entities, a commercial worldwide satellite 
communications system. Subsequently, the international treaty 
organization, INTELSAT, was created to provide mainly telephone and 
data services around the world. COMSAT and INTELSAT have worked 
together over the last three decades to introduce satellite 
communications services here and abroad.
  The INTELSAT/COMSAT experiment has been a magnificent success. 
INTELSAT has grown to include 142 member countries, utilizing a network 
of 24 satellites that offer voice, data and video services around the 
world. In the last fifteen years, technological advances, improved 
large-scale financing options, and enriched market conditions have 
created a favorable climate for new companies to provide services that 
only INTELSAT had previously been able to offer. However, while the 
success of INTELSAT has spurred multiple private commercial companies 
to penetrate the global satellite market, these private companies have 
expressed serious concern about the existence of INTELSAT, in its 
present form, and the unlevel playing field upon which they must 
compete with INTELSAT. My legislation addresses their concerns.
  This legislation prods INTELSAT to transform itself from a multi-
governmentally owned and controlled monopoly to a fully privatized 
company. The legislation articulates the new United States policy that 
INTELSAT must privatize as soon as possible, but no later than January 
1, 2002 and it creates a process to encourage and verify that this 
privatization effort occurs in a pro-competitive manner.
  This legislation puts clear and specific restrictions on INTELSAT's 
ability to expand its service offerings into new areas, such as direct 
broadcast satellite services and Ka-band communications, pending 
privatization. At the same time, it preserves INTELSAT's ability to 
provide its customers services they currently enjoy. INTELSAT customers 
are not artificially denied services to which they already have access.
  INTELSAT also is offered incentives to privatize. One of INTELSAT's 
most important business objectives is to obtain direct access to the 
lucrative U.S. domestic market. My legislation does not hand this over 
to INTELSAT and the other 141 member countries without commercial 
reform. Rather, it withholds this desired benefit until privatization 
is complete. I should add that with the introduction of this 
legislation, I call on the FCC to halt its pending rulemaking to allow 
Intelsat to directly access the U.S. market before privatization. This 
rulemaking undermines a central tenet of this bill, and would exceed 
the agency's authority in any event. I urge the FCC to let Congress 
resolve this issue through the legislative process.
       This legislation provides the President of the United 
     States with the authority to certify that INTELSAT has 
     privatized in a sufficiently pro-competitive manner that it 
     will not harm competition in the U.S. satellite marketplace. 
     The President is required to consider a whole array of 
     criteria such as the owner structure of INTELSAT, its 
     independence from the intergovernmental organization, and its 
     relinquishment of privileges and immunities. These criteria 
     will ensure that INTELSAT is transformed into a commercially 
     competitive company without any unfair advantages. If the 
     privatization does not occur within the time frame provided 
     in my legislation, January 1, 2002, the President is required 
     to withdraw the U.S. from INTELSAT.
  I believe that the House and the Senate, working constructively 
together, can enact international satellite competition legislation 
this year. In particular, I want to commend the Chairman of the House 
Commerce Committee, Representative Bliley, for all the good work he did 
last Congress in passing H.R. 1872 through the House. I am confident 
that our shared objectives will enable us to resolve differences on a 
number of specific issues and obtain the broad, bipartisan support 
needed to move this legislation quickly. I especially look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate to 
reaching swift agreement on this bill which will enhance America's 
competitive position as we enter the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 377. A bill to eliminate the special reserve funds created for the 
Savings Association Insurance Fund and the Deposit Insurance Fund, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                 SAIF Special Reserve Elimination bill

 Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. 
This legislation would eliminate the Savings Association Insurance Fund 
(SAIF) special reserve. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC) has indicated that this is one of their top priorities. We feel 
this legislation is important because capitalization of the special 
reserve could potentially destabilize the SAIF.
  The Special Reserve of the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) 
was established on January 1, 1999. It was created by the Deposit 
Insurance Act of 1996 to provide a backup to the SAIF and further 
protect the taxpayers from another costly bailout of failed financial 
institutions. The law stipulated that the amount in the SAIF special 
reserve should equal the amount by which the SAIF reserve ratio 
exceeded the designated reserve ratio on January 1, 1999. The 
designated reserve ratio is 1.25 percent of estimated insured deposits. 
As a result, on January first of this year, about $1 billion was 
transferred from the SAIF to the special reserve of the SAIF. Now the 
SAIF, because it does not include the amount set aside in the special 
reserve, is capitalized at 1.25 percent of insured deposits.
  The problem with this newly established special reserve is that it 
has the potential to destabilize the SAIF. Since $1 billion was 
transferred into the special reserve, thereby reducing the SAIF to the 
minimum required reserve level of 1.25 percent, the chances that the 
reserve ratio could drop below that level due to adverse circumstances 
has increased significantly. If this ever

[[Page 1898]]

occurs, the FDIC may assess new insurance premiums since the 1996 
amendments do not allow the special reserve funds to be used in the 
calculation of the SAIF. And new premium on thrifts resulting from the 
special reserve would be unfair and discriminatory.
  In addition, the special reserve funds cannot be used unless the SAIF 
reachers a dangerously low level. Current law does not allow the FDIC 
to access the funds in the special reserve until the reserve ratio 
reaches 0.625 percent of the designated ratio, and the FDIC expects the 
ratio to remain at or below that level for each of the next four 
quarters. This does not allow the FDIC to properly manage the SAIF.
  The Enzi/Johnson bill also makes conforming and technical amendments 
requested by the FDIC. These changes would delete provisions of the 
Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 relating to the merger of the two deposit 
insurance funds. The Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the SAIF were not 
merged by the target date of January 1, 1999, because savings 
associations are still in existence. Therefore, these provisions are 
unnecessary.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important 
legislation before a change in the SAIF would create a budgetary 
impact. It represents an appropriate solution to what could be a major 
deposit insurance problem.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Harkin, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 379. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Transportation to implement a pilot program to improve 
access to the national transportation system for small communities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                the air service restoration act of 1999

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to 
introduce the Air Service Restoration Act of 1999, together with my 
colleagues Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman.
  In the past several years there has been a growing debate in the 
Congress and across the nation about the state of our aviation 
industry. The primary concerns heard again and again are that a decline 
in air service to small and rural communities and increasing 
consolidation among airlines and in certain essential markets are 
hurting consumers and stifling economic development.
  I know these concerns well from the experience of my home State of 
West Virginia. By virtually any measure West Virginia is the State that 
has been hardest hit by air service declines in the twenty years since 
deregulation. With the notable exception of a few important upgrades 
and new opportunities in the last year, West Virginia's air service has 
been far inferior to that provided other communities--the planes are 
uncomfortable, the prices are high, and the schedules are thin and 
subject to frequent cancellations. As a result, at a time when the rest 
of the nation has experienced a 75 percent increase in air traffic, 
passenger enplanements statewide in West Virginia have declined by 
nearly 40 percent.
  The real tragedy of poor air service isn't passenger inconvenience or 
frustration, however, it's the negative impact on economic development. 
In today's global marketplace air service has become the single most 
important mode of transportation. When it comes to economic growth, 
there is no substitute for good air service, and the lack of quality, 
affordable service can and does hold us back, stunting economic growth 
in West Virginia just as it does in small and rural communities across 
the country. We must act now to stem this tide--to restore and promote 
air service to under-served areas--or we will never be able to close 
the gap in a meaningful and sustained way.
  This legislation is designed not only to build on the successes of 
airline deregulation but also to take responsibility for its failures. 
It contains four major provisions:
  First, the centerpiece of the bill is a five-year $100 million pilot 
program for up to 40 small and under-served communities, with grants of 
up to $500,000 to each community for local initiatives to attract and 
promote service.
  Second, the Department of Transportation would have the authority to 
facilitate links between pilot communities and major airports by 
requiring joint fares and interline agreements between dominant 
airlines at hub airports and new service providers at under-served 
airports.
  Third, to address a key infrastructure concern of small and rural 
airports, the bill establishes a pilot program allowing communities 
facing the loss of an air traffic control tower to instead share the 
cost of funding the tower, on a contract basis, in proportion to the 
cost-benefit ratio of the tower.
  Fourth, the bill calls on the Department of Transportation to review 
airline industry marketing practices--practices which many believe are 
exacerbating the decline in air service to small communities--and, if 
necessary, promulgate regulations to curb abuses.
  The legislation we introduce today should begin to afford small and 
rural community air service the priority they deserve in our national 
transportation policy. It is similar to a bill I and my colleagues 
introduced last year, many provisions of which were adopted by the full 
Senate in the failed FAA and AIP reauthorization bill of 1998. 
Variations on some of these provisions have also been included in the 
1999 reauthorization bill introduced last month by Senators McCain, 
Hollings, Gorton and myself. I am hopeful that we will successfully 
enact this legislation, to protect and restore small community air 
service, this year.
  Admittedly, airline deregulation has been a real success story in 
much of the nation, with lower fares, better service, and more choices 
for many passengers, as well as tremendous financial success and 
stability for commercial airlines. But as I have said in the past, 
airline deregulation has handed out the benefits of air travel 
unevenly, and we face today an ever-widening gap between the air 
transportation ``haves'' and ``have-nots''. We in the Congress have a 
responsibility to foster and maintain a truly national air 
transportation system, and we fail our small and rural communities when 
we leave them with the choice between high-cost, poor-quality service 
or no service at all.
  This legislation and this year offer a real opportunity to re-double 
our efforts to connect small and rural communities to our air 
transportation system in a meaningful way. I commend the efforts of 
Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin and Bingaman to solve this daunting 
national problem, and I hope our colleagues will join us in the 
endeavor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 379

       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 ``Air Service Restoration 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) a national transportation system providing safe, high 
     quality service to all areas of the United States is 
     essential to interstate commerce and the economic well-being 
     of cities and towns throughout the United States;
       (2) taxpayers throughout the United States have supported 
     and helped to fund the United States aviation infrastructure 
     and have a right to expect that aviation services will be 
     provided in an equitable and fair manner to every region of 
     the country;
       (3) some communities have not benefited from airline 
     deregulation and access to essential airports and air 
     services has been limited;
       (4) air service to a number of small communities has 
     suffered since deregulation;
       (5) studies by the Department of Transportation have 
     documented that, since the airline industry was deregulated 
     in 1978--
       (A) 34 small communities have lost service and many small 
     communities have had jet aircraft service replaced by 
     turboprop aircraft service;

[[Page 1899]]

       (B) out of a total of 320 small communities, the number of 
     small communities being served by major air carriers declined 
     from 213 in 1978 to 33 in 1995;
       (C) the number of small communities receiving service to 
     only one major hub airport increased from 79 in 1978 to 134 
     in 1995; and
       (D) the number of small communities receiving multiple-
     carrier service decreased from 136 in 1978 to 122 in 1995; 
     and
       (6) improving air service to small- and medium-sized 
     communities that have not benefited from fare reductions and 
     improved service since deregulation will likely entail a 
     range of Federal, State, regional, local, and private sector 
     initiatives.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to facilitate, through a pilot 
     program, incentives and projects that will help communities 
     to improve their access to the essential airport facilities 
     of the national air transportation system through public-
     private partnerships and to identify and establish ways to 
     overcome the unique policy, economic, geographic, and 
     marketplace factors that may inhibit the availability of 
     quality, affordable air service to small communities.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF SMALL COMMUNITY AVIATION DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM

       Section 102 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(g) Small Community Air Service Development Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 5-
     year pilot aviation development program to be administered by 
     a program director designated by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Functions.--The program director shall--
       ``(A) function as a facilitator between small communities 
     and air carriers;
       ``(B) carry out section 41743 of this title;
       ``(C) carry out the airline service restoration program 
     under sections 41744, 41745, and 41746 of this title;
       ``(D) ensure that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
     collects data on passenger information to assess the service 
     needs of small communities;
       ``(E) work with and coordinate efforts with other Federal, 
     State, and local agencies to increase the viability of 
     service to small communities and the creation of aviation 
     development zones; and
       ``(F) provide policy recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Congress that will ensure that small communities have 
     access to quality, affordable air transportation services.
       ``(3) Reports.--The program director shall provide an 
     annual report to the Secretary and the Congress beginning in 
     2000 that--
       ``(A) analyzes the availability of air transportation 
     services in small communities, including, but not limited to, 
     an assessment of the air fares charged for air transportation 
     services in small communities compared to air fares charged 
     for air transportation services in larger metropolitan areas 
     and an assessment of the levels of service, measured by types 
     of aircraft used, the availability of seats, and scheduling 
     of flights, provided to small communities.
       ``(B) identifies the policy, economic, geographic and 
     marketplace factors that inhibit the availability of quality, 
     affordable air transportation services to small communities; 
     and
       ``(C) provides policy recommendations to address the 
     policy, economic, geographic and marketplace factors 
     inhibiting the availability of quality, affordable air 
     transportation services to small communities.''.

     SEC. 5. COMMUNITY-CARRIER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 41743. Air service program for small communities

       ``(a) Communities Program.--Under advisory guidelines 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation, a small 
     community or a consortia of small communities or a State may 
     develop an assessment of its air service requirements, in 
     such form as the program director designated by the Secretary 
     under section 102(g) may require, and submit the assessment 
     and service proposal to the program director.
       ``(b) Selection of Participants.--In selecting community 
     programs for participation in the communities program under 
     subsection (a), the program director shall apply criteria, 
     including geographical diversity and the presentation of 
     unique circumstances, that will demonstrate the feasibility 
     of the program. For purposes of this subsection, the 
     application of geographical diversity criteria means criteria 
     that--
       ``(1) will promote the development of a national air 
     transportation system; and
       ``(2) will involve the participation of communities in all 
     regions of the country.
       ``(c) Carriers Program.--The program director shall invite 
     part 121 air carriers and regional/commuter carriers (as such 
     terms are defined in section 41715(d) of this title) to offer 
     service proposals in response to, or in conjunction with, 
     community aircraft service assessments submitted to the 
     office under subsection (a). A service proposal under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       ``(1) an assessment of potential daily passenger traffic, 
     revenues, and costs necessary for the carrier to offer the 
     service;
       ``(2) a forecast of the minimum percentage of that traffic 
     the carrier would require the community to garner in order 
     for the carrier to start up and maintain the service; and
       ``(3) the costs and benefits of providing jet service by 
     regional or other jet aircraft.
       ``(d) Program Support Function.--The program director shall 
     work with small communities and air carriers, taking into 
     account their proposals and needs, to facilitate the 
     initiation of service. The program director--
       ``(1) may work with communities to develop innovative means 
     and incentives for the initiation of service;
       ``(2) may obligate funds authorized under section 6 of the 
     Air Service Restoration Act to carry out this section;
       ``(3) shall continue to work with both the carriers and the 
     communities to develop a combination of community incentives 
     and carrier service levels that--
       ``(A) are acceptable to communities and carriers; and
       ``(B) do not conflict with other Federal or State programs 
     to facilitate air transportation to the communities;
       ``(4) designate an airport in the program as an Air Service 
     Development Zone and work with the community on means to 
     attract business to the area surrounding the airport, to 
     develop land use options for the area, and provide data, 
     working with the Department of Commerce and other agencies;
       ``(5) take such other action under this chapter as may be 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Community support.--The program director may not 
     provide financial assistance under subsection (c)(2) to any 
     community unless the program director determines that--
       ``(A) a public-private partnership exists at the community 
     level to carry out the community's proposal;
       ``(B) the community will make a substantial financial 
     contribution that is appropriate for that community's 
     resources, but of not less than 25 percent of the cost of the 
     project in any event;
       ``(C) the community has established an open process for 
     soliciting air service proposals; and
       ``(D) the community will accord similar benefits to air 
     carriers that are similarly situated.
       ``(2) Amount.--The program director may not obligate more 
     than $100,000,000 of the amounts authorized under section 6 
     of the Air Service Restoration Act over the 5 years of the 
     program.
       ``(3) Number of participants.--The program established 
     under subsection (a) shall not involve more than 40 
     communities or consortia of communities.
       ``(f) Report.--The program director shall report through 
     the Secretary to the Congress annually on the progress made 
     under this section during the preceding year in expanding 
     commercial aviation service to smaller communities.

     ``Sec. 41744. Pilot program project authority

       ``(a) In General.--The program director designated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under section 102(g)(1) shall 
     establish a 5-year pilot program--
       ``(1) to assist communities and States with inadequate 
     access to the national transportation system to improve their 
     access to that system; and
       ``(2) to facilitate better air service link-ups to support 
     the improved access.
       ``(b) Project Authority.--Under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the program director 
     may--
       ``(1) out of amounts authorized under section 6 of the Air 
     Service Restoration Act, provide financial assistance by way 
     of grants to small communities or consortia of small 
     communities under section 41743 of up to $500,000 per year; 
     and
       ``(2) take such other action as may be appropriate.
       ``(c) Other Action.--Under the pilot program established 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the program director may 
     facilitate service by--
       ``(1) working with airports and air carriers to ensure that 
     appropriate facilities are made available at essential 
     airports;
       ``(2) collecting data on air carrier service to small 
     communities; and
       ``(3) providing policy recommendations to the Secretary to 
     stimulate air service and competition to small communities.
       ``(d) Additional Action.--Under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     work with air carriers providing service to participating 
     communities and major air carriers serving large hub airports 
     (as defined in section 41731(a)(3)) to facilitate joint fare 
     arrangements consistent with normal industry practice.

     ``Sec. 41745. Assistance to communities for service

       ``(a) In General.--Financial assistance provided under 
     section 41743 during any fiscal year as part of the pilot 
     program established under section 41744(a) shall be implement 
     for not more than--
       ``(1) 4 communities within any State at any given time; and
       ``(2) 40 communities in the entire program at any time.

     For purposes of this subsection, a consortium of communities 
     shall be treated as a single community.

[[Page 1900]]

       ``(b) Eligibility.--In order to participate in a pilot 
     project under this subchapter, a State, community, or group 
     of communities shall apply to the Secretary in such form and 
     at such time, and shall supply such information, as the 
     Secretary may require, and shall demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that--
       ``(1) the applicant has an identifiable need for access, or 
     improved access, to the national air transportation system 
     that would benefit the public;
       ``(2) the pilot project will provide material benefits to a 
     broad section of the travelling public, businesses, 
     educational institutions, and other enterprises whose access 
     to the national air transportation system is limited;
       ``(3) the pilot project will not impede competition; and
       (4) the applicant has established, or will establish, 
     public-private partnerships in connection with the pilot 
     project to facilitate service to the public.
       ``(c) Coordination With Other Provisions of Subchapter.--
     The Secretary shall carry out the 5-year pilot program 
     authorized by this subchapter in such a manner as to 
     complement action taken under the other provisions of this 
     subchapter. To the extent the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, the Secretary may adopt criteria for 
     implementation of the 5-year pilot program that are the same 
     as, or similar to, the criteria developed under the preceding 
     sections of this subchapter for determining which airports 
     are eligible under those sections. The Secretary shall also, 
     to the extent possible, provide incentives where no direct, 
     viable, and feasible alternative service exists, taking into 
     account geographical diversity and appropriate market 
     definitions.
       ``(d) Maximization of Participation.--The Secretary shall 
     structure the program established pursuant to section 
     41744(a) in a way designed to--
       ``(1) permit the participation of the maximum feasible 
     number of communities and States over a 5-year period by 
     limiting the number of years of participation or otherwise; 
     and
       ``(2) obtain the greatest possible leverage from the 
     financial resources available to the Secretary and the 
     applicant by--
       ``(A) progressively decreasing, on a project-by-project 
     basis, any Federal financial incentives provided under this 
     chapter over the 5-year period; and
       ``(B) terminating as early as feasible Federal financial 
     incentives for any project determined by the Secretary after 
     its implementation to be--
       ``(i) viable without further support under this subchapter; 
     or
       ``(ii) failing to meet the purposes of this chapter or 
     criteria established by the Secretary under the pilot 
     program.
       ``(e) Success Bonus.--If Federal financial incentives to a 
     community are terminated under subsection (d)(2)(B) because 
     of the success of the program in that community, then that 
     community may receive a one-time incentive grant to ensure 
     the continued success of that program.
       ``(f) Program To Terminate in 5 Years.--No new financial 
     assistance may be provided under this subchapter for any 
     fiscal year beginning more than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Air Service Restoration Act.

     ``Sec. 41746. Additional authority

       ``In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary--
       ``(1) may provide assistance to States and communities in 
     the design and application phase of any project under this 
     chapter, and oversee the implementation of any such project;
       ``(2) may assist States and communities in putting together 
     projects under this chapter to utilize private sector 
     resources, other Federal resources, or a combination of 
     public and private resources;
       ``(3) may accord priority to service by jet aircraft;
       ``(4) take such action as may be necessary to ensure that 
     financial resources, facilities, and administrative 
     arrangements made under this chapter are used to carry out 
     the purposes of the Air Service Restoration Act; and
       ``(5) shall work with the Federal Aviation Administration 
     on airport and air traffic control needs of communities in 
     the program.

     ``Sec. 41747. Air traffic control services pilot program

       ``(a) In General.--To further facilitate the use of, and 
     improve the safety at, small airports, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a pilot 
     program to contract for Level I air traffic control services 
     at 20 facilities not eligible for participation in the 
     Federal Contract Tower Program.
       ``(b) Program Components.--In carrying out the pilot 
     program established under subsection (a), the Administrator 
     may--
       ``(1) utilize current, actual, site-specific data, forecast 
     estimates, or airport system plan data provided by a facility 
     owner or operator;
       ``(2) take into consideration unique aviation safety, 
     weather, strategic national interest, disaster relief, 
     medical and other emergency management relief services, 
     status of regional airline service, and related factors at 
     the facility;
       ``(3) approve for participation any facility willing to 
     fund a pro rata share of the operating costs used by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to calculate, and, as 
     necessary, a 1:1 benefit-to-cost ration, as required for 
     eligibility under the Federal Contract Tower Program; and
       ``(4) approve for participation no more than 3 facilities 
     willing to fund a pro rata share of construction costs for an 
     air traffic control tower so as to achieve, at a minimum, a 
     1:1 benefit-to-cost ratio, as required for eligibility under 
     the Federal Contract Tower Program, and for each of such 
     facilities the Federal share of construction costs does not 
     exceed $1,000,000.
       ``(c) Report.--One year before the pilot program 
     established under subsection (a) terminates, the 
     Administrator shall report to the Congress on the 
     effectiveness of the program, with particular emphasis on the 
     safety and economic benefits provided to program participants 
     and the national air transportation system.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subchapter II of chapter 417 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 41742 the following:

``41743. Air service program for small communities.
``41744. Pilot program project authority.
``41745. Assistance to communities for service.
``41746. Additional authority.
``41747. Air traffic control services pilot program.''.

       (c) Waiver of Local Contribution.--Section 41736(b) is 
     amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

     ``Paragraph (4) does not apply to any community approved for 
     service under this section during the period beginning 
     October 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1997.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out section 41747 of title 
     49, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       To carry out sections 41743 through 41746 of title 49, 
     United States Code, for the 4 fiscal-year period beginning 
     with fiscal year 2000 there are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation not more than 
     $100,000,000.

     SEC. 7. MARKETING PRACTICES.

       Section 41712 is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``On''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Marketing Practices That Adversely Affect Service to 
     Small or Medium Communities.--Within 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Air Service Restoration Act, the 
     Secretary shall review the marketing practices of air 
     carriers that may inhibit the availability of quality, 
     affordable air transportation services to small and medium-
     sized communities, including--
       ``(1) marketing arrangements between airlines and travel 
     agents;
       ``(2) code-sharing partnerships;
       ``(3) computer reservation system displays;
       ``(4) gate arrangements at airports;
       ``(5) exclusive dealing arrangements; and
       ``(6) any other marketing practice that may have the same 
     effect.
       ``(c) Regulations.--If the Secretary finds, after 
     conducting the review required by subsection (b), that 
     marketing practices inhibit the availability of such service 
     to such communities, then, after public notice and an 
     opportunity for comment, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that address the problem.''.

     SEC. 8. NONDISCRIMINATORY INTERLINE INTERCONNECTION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 41717. Interline agreements for domestic 
       transportation

       ``(a) Nondiscriminatory Requirements.--If a major air 
     carrier that provides air service to an essential airport 
     facility has any agreement involving ticketing, baggage and 
     ground handling, and terminal and gate access with another 
     carrier, it shall provide the same services to any requesting 
     air carrier that offers service to a community selected for 
     participation in the program under section 41743 under 
     similar terms and conditions and on a nondiscriminatory basis 
     within 30 days after receiving the request, as long as the 
     requesting air carrier meets such safety, service, financial, 
     and maintenance requirements, if any, as the Secretary may by 
     regulation establish consistent with public convenience and 
     necessity. The Secretary must review any proposed agreement 
     to determine if the requesting carrier meets operational 
     requirements consistent with the rules, procedures, and 
     policies of the major carrier. This agreement may be 
     terminated by either party in the event of failure to meet 
     the standards and conditions outlined in the agreement.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section the term `essential 
     airport facility' means a large hub airport (as defined in 
     section 41731(a)(3)) in the contiguous 48 States in which one 
     carrier has more than 50 percent of such airport's total 
     annual enplanements.''.
       (b) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subchapter I of chapter 417 is

[[Page 1901]]

     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``41717. Interline agreements for domestic transportation.''.

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation today, along with other colleagues, that is designed to 
inject more airline competition and improve air service to small 
communities. Since the deregulation of the airline industry two decades 
ago, hundreds of small communities have experienced service degradation 
and many have lost service altogether. Vast geographic regions of our 
country have suffered unacceptable geographic isolation as the airlines 
have withdrawn service in smaller communities. This trend needs the 
serious attention of the Congress and the Department of Transportation.
  Included in this legislation are several provisions designed to 
promote airline competition and develop air service to the many rural 
areas of the country that have suffered the consequences of laissez-
faire deregulation. The consequence can be summed up in one phrase: 
``unregulated monopolies.''
  Unregulated monopolies result in a number of effects: (1) higher 
prices and fewer choices for consumers and (2) the elimination of 
competition and the establishment of entry barriers that make 
competition a nearly impossible task.
  While deregulation has been a wonderful success for the people who 
travel between the major metropolitan areas of the country, it has been 
an unmitigated disaster for most rural areas and smaller communities. 
Transportation Department studies have documented that 167 communities 
have lost air service in the past two decades and hundreds have 
suffered service degradation manifested by loss of jet service or loss 
of access to a major hub airport.
  In a report by the General Accounting Office issued in October, 1997 
entitled, ``Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Entry Continue to Limit 
Competition in Several Key Domestic Markets'' [GAO/RCED-97-4], 
operating limitations and marketing practices of large, dominate 
carriers restrict entry and competition to an extent not anticipated by 
Congress when it deregulated the airline industry. The GAO identified a 
number of entry barriers and anti-competitive practices which are 
stifling competition and contributing to higher fares. The GAO issued a 
similar report in 1990 and the 1996 report said that not only has the 
situation not improved for new entrants, but things have gotten worse.
  These mega carriers have created thiefdoms, securing dominate market 
shares at regional hubs. Since deregulation, all major airlines have 
created hub-and-spoke systems where they funnel arrivals and departures 
though hub airports where they dominate traffic. Today, all but 3 hubs 
are dominated by a single airline where the carrier has between 60 and 
90 percent of all the arrivals, departures, and passengers at the hub.
  The fact is that deregulation has lead to greater concentration and 
stifling competition. The legislative history of the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938 shows that Congress was as deeply concerned about 
destructive competition as it was with the monopolization of air 
transportation services. Thus, the CAA sought to ensure that a 
competitive economic environment existed. As we can see, deregulation 
is realizing the fears anticipated by the Congress in 1938. Competition 
has not become the general rule. Rather, competition is the exception 
in an unregulated market controlled largely by regional monopolies.
  Deregulation has also resulted in disproportionate air fares. It has 
been demonstrated that hub concentration has translated into higher 
fares and rural communities that are dependent upon concentrated hubs 
have seen higher fares.
  Studies from DOT and the GAO have demonstrated that in the 15 out of 
18 hubs in which a single carrier controls more than 50% of the 
traffic, passengers are paying more than the industry norm. The GAO 
studied 1988 fares at 15 concentrated airports and compared those with 
fares at 38 competitive hub airports. The GAO found that fares at the 
concentrated hubs were 27% higher.
  The difference between regulation and deregulation is not a change 
from monopoly control to free market competition. Rather, the change is 
from having regulated monopolies serving 93% of the market to 
deregulated monopolies serving 85% of the market, according to Dempsey. 
Today, nearly two-thirds of our nation's city-pairs are unregulated 
monopolies where a monopoly carrier can charge whatever they wish in 2 
out of 3 city-pairs in the domestic market.
  A January 1991 GAO Report on Fares and Concentration at Small-City 
Airports found that passengers flying from small-city airports on 
average paid 34 percent more when they flew to a major airport 
dominated by one or two airlines than when they flew to a major airport 
that was not concentrated. The report also found that when both the 
small airport and the major hub were concentrated, fares were 42 
percent higher than if there was competition at both ends.
  A July 1993 GAO Report on Airline Competition concluded that airline 
passengers generally pay higher fares at 14 concentrated airports than 
at airports with more competition. The report found that fares at 
concentrated airports were about 22 percent higher than fares at 35 
less concentrated airports. The same report found that the number of 
destinations served directly by only one airline rose 56 percent to 64 
percent from 1985 to 1992, while the number of destinations served by 3 
or more airlines fell from 19% to 11% during that same period. This 
report confirmed similar conclusion reached in previous GAO studies 
conducted in 1989 and 1990.
  The fact is that deregulation, while paving the road to concentration 
and consolidation, has allowed regional monopolies to control prices in 
non-competitive markets. While the entrance of low cost carriers has 
introduced competition in dense markets, the main difference between 
today and pre-deregulation is that the monopolies are unregulated.
  Concentration, not competition, is the current trend in the airline 
industry. In 1938, when the Federal Government began to regulate air 
transportation services, there were 16 carriers who accounted for all 
the total traffic in the U.S. domestic market. By 1978 (the year 
Congress passed deregulation legislation) the same 16 carriers (reduced 
to 11 through mergers) still accounted for 94% of the total traffic.
  Today, those same 11 carriers (now reduced to 7 through mergers and 
bankruptcies) account for over 80% of the total traffic [measured in 
terms of revenue passenger miles]. When these 7 carriers (American; 
Continental; Delta; Northwest; United; and US Air) are combined with 
their code-share partner, they account for more than 95% of the total 
air traffics in the domestic U.S.
  One expert estimated in 1992 that since deregulation, over 120 new 
airlines appeared. However, more than 200 have gone bankrupt or been 
acquired in mergers.
  Between 1970 and 1988, there were 51 airline mergers and 
acquisitions--20 of those were approved by the Department of 
Transportation after 1985, when it assumed all jurisdiction over merger 
and acquisition requests. In fact, DOT approved every airline merger 
submitted to it after it assumed jurisdiction over mergers from the 
Civil Aeronautics Board in 1984. Fifteen independent airlines operating 
at the beginning of 1986 had been merged into six mega carriers by the 
end of 1987. And, these six carriers increased their market share from 
71.3% in 1978 to 80.5% in 1990.
  At a hearing last year in the Senate Commerce Committee, Alfred Kahn, 
the father of airline deregulation, testified and offered some 
interesting reflections on the results of airline deregulation. I 
recounted for him the unprecedented concentration in the market that 
was fostered by the deregulation he helped create and asked him if he 
foresaw this and if the competition he expected to merge has been 
realized. He responded with great disappointment saying that the 
industry concentration has perverted the purpose of

[[Page 1902]]

deregulation and he pinned much of the blame for this result on the 
mergers. He said: ``While I do not want to mention anyone by name, but 
one of the problems is that there was one Secretary of Transportation 
who never met a merger she did not like.''
  These mega carriers have created competition free zones, securing 
dominate market shares at regional hubs. Since deregulation, all major 
airlines have created hub-and-spoke systems where they funnel arrivals 
and departures through hub airports where they dominate traffic. Today, 
all but 3 hubs are dominated by a single airline where the carrier has 
between 60 and 90 percent of all the arrivals, departures, and 
passengers at the hub.
  The non-aggression pacts between the major airline carriers are also 
being manifested in code-share partnerships--which are virtual 
mergers--where they pledge not to compete but to combine their route 
systems to further solidify their control over their regional 
monopolies.
  Northwest has announced a deal with Continental; while United and 
Delta are teaming up; and American and US Air are establishing a 
partnership. While code-share partnerships are not mergers, but the 
impact on market concentration may be the same.
  The proposed partnerships between the major carriers (and their code-
share partners) will have the following shares of the U.S. domestic 
market:
  Delta/United: 35 percent; American/US Air: 26 percent; and Northwest/
Continental: 21 percent for a total of 82 percent.
  In contrast, the rest of the carriers share less than 20% combined--
the largest share of which is Southwest Airlines at 6.4%.
  This legislation would establish the Small Community Air Service 
Development Program which could go a long way to address the small 
community air service problems. Earlier this year, Senator McCain and 
others introduced S. 82, the ``Air Transportation Improvement Act,'' 
which contains provisions establishing this program. However, the 
authorization level proposed in that legislation does not provide 
adequate enough resources for this demonstration program to make much 
of a difference. Thus, this bill would establish a 5-year pilot 
program, authorized at $20 million per year--which is half the amount 
currently provided annually to the Essential Air Service Program. In 
contrast, S. 82 provides only $30 million total over a 4-year period. 
At that level, very few communities will be able to participate and 
their air service deficiencies will unfortunately continue.
  In addition, the bill requires the Department of Transportation to 
review the marketing practices of the major airlines and to take action 
to rectify problems that impede air service to small and medium sized 
communities. Numerous GAO reports have highlighted the anti-competitive 
nature of some airline policies toward travel agents; bias in computer 
reservation systems; and certain gate arrangements at some airports. 
These barriers to entry need to be addressed and this legislation would 
address those problems.
  This measure also includes a provision to facilitate air service to 
under-served communities and encourage airline competition through non-
discriminatory interconnection requirements between air carriers. This 
provision simply imposes a nondiscrimination requirement on air 
carriers with market dominance at large hub airports--which are the 
bottleneck access points to the national air transportation system--
with respect to interline agreements in order to allow competitors to 
interconnect into the large hub airports. Interline arrangements will 
allow passengers to move more efficiently between carriers when 
transferring between while maintaining the independent identities of 
competing carriers.
  Barriers to competition in the airline industry have grown more 
insurmountable under the hub and spoke system where the major carriers 
dominate the large hubs, granting them regional monopolies. These 
dominate carriers are selective with their cooperation with other 
carriers; limiting their interline and joint fare agreements only to 
carriers that will not directly compete with them. In a circumstance 
where a major airline dominates access to the large hub airports, 
carriers not afforded the cooperation of the major airlines face an 
insurmountable barrier to entry.
  The principle of this amendment is simple: if an air carrier has 
market dominance at a large hub airport, then that carrier cannot 
discriminate amongst carriers with whom it provides cooperation to 
allow passengers to transfer between each carrier's network at the 
dominate hub. This amendment would not impose any code-sharing or other 
business agreements on marketing or promotion. Rather, it requires 
cooperation and prevents anti-competitive discrimination with respect 
to interline agreements between carriers.
  The principle underlying this provision is similar to the fundamental 
principle driving local competition in telecommunications markets. When 
Congress de-regulated the telecommunications industry three years ago, 
the fundamental element to promote competition in that legislation was 
the requirement that the incumbent carriers would be required, by law, 
to allow their competitors to interconnect into their network. In a 
situation where the incumbent dominates or controls the local 
bottleneck (in phone service it is the local loop and in aviation it is 
the large hub airports through which most all air traffic flows) the 
only way to permit competition is to require interconnection. If the 
incumbent carriers are permitted to exclude passengers from competing 
airlines to flow between their system and that of their competitors, 
the major carriers that dominate the hubs will ensure that there is no 
possibility of successful competition.
  The interline provision is similar to the interconnection 
requirements imposed upon local phone monopolies. In order to develop 
competition in the local market, we had to impose, by law, the 
requirement that the monopoly must allow its competitors to 
interconnect into their networks. The interline provision is the 
aviation equivalent of that requirement (except that under this 
provision, the only requirement is that dominant carriers who control 
access to the air service bottlenecks cannot discriminate amongst the 
carriers it provides cooperation to permit passengers to transfer 
between networks). In light of what has been required of other 
industries under the goal of promoting competition (e.g., 
telecommunications), a non-discriminatory interline requirement makes 
sense if one wants to see a competitive industry.
  This provision is not about re-regulation--it is about fulfilling the 
goal of deregulation by encouraging competition and allowing 
competition to be the regulator. Fostering competition is a mandate of 
the Airline Deregulation Act. This amendment is consistent with the 
mandate under current law that the Secretary foster competition. Under 
the Airline Deregulation Act, Section 40101 of Title 49, U.S.C., the 
Department of Transportation is directed to: avoid unreasonable 
industry concentration [Sec. 40101(a)(10)]; encourage, develop, and 
maintain an air transportation system relying on actual and potential 
competition [Sec. 40101(a)(12)]; and encourage entry into air 
transportation markets by new and existing carriers [Sec. 
40101(a)(13)].
  The interline provision will strengthen the economic viability of air 
service to small rural communities and enhance the ability of regional 
commuters and new entrants to provide essential air service. It also 
will prevent the major airlines from engaging in the anti-competitive 
behavior of excluding smaller and new entrants from the national air 
transportation network.
  When the Congress eliminated the old Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 
1984, there was concern, at that time, about the abuses employed by the 
major airlines to selectively use interline agreements as an unfair 
competitive practice. During the debate on the Conference Report on the 
CAB Sunset Act, Congressman Norman Mineta said:

       In recent months there have also been concerns that the 
     larger carriers in the industry

[[Page 1903]]

     might use the right to interline with them as a device to 
     restrict competition. This could be accomplished by selective 
     refusals to interline or by selective refusals on reasonable 
     terms, based on competitive considerations. Under section 411 
     of the Federal Aviation Act, the CAB has authority to act 
     against unfair competitive practices arising from agreements 
     to interline. The conference bill transfers this authority to 
     the Department of Transportation and we expect the Department 
     to carefully monitor interlining practices to be sure that 
     there are no abuses. This will help preserve the system of 
     interlining and the major benefits it brings to consumers.

  The only way to allow for competition in this environment is to 
impose conditions on the major carriers to cooperate with their 
competitors. Interline and joint fares are necessary to ensure that the 
dominant carriers will not kill potential competitors by denying them 
access to the essential facilities of the air transportation industry: 
the major hubs. These facilities have been built with public funds and 
all carriers should have access to those facilities. Interline and 
joint fares will help create that access.
  This legislation is not a silver bullet that will alleviate all the 
air service problems facing certain parts of the country. However, it 
does carefully target certain known problems that impede airline 
competition and it establishes a badly needed program to assist small 
communities in improving their air service. I hope my colleagues will 
support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        Ashcroft, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Burns, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Mr. Helms, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Gregg, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 380. A bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


          the congressional award reauthorization act of 1999

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Montana, 
Mr. Baucus, today to introduce the Congressional Award Reauthorization 
Act of 1999--a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award program for 
another five years.
  The Congressional Award program was first authorized and signed into 
law in 1979. Since then it has received the support of Congress and 
Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton for one very simple 
reason--it helps encourage and recognize excellence among America's 
young people.
  The program is non-competitive; participants challenge only 
themselves. Young people from all walks of life and levels of ability 
can work to earn a Congressional Award. Participants range from the 
academically and physically gifted, to those with severe physical, 
mental, and socio-economic challenges.
  The Congressional Award is an earned award; young people are not 
selected for it. Participants strive for either a Bronze, Silver, or 
Gold Award. At each level, 50% of the required minimum hours to earn 
the Award are in Volunteer Service (a minimum of 100 hours for Bronze, 
200 for Silver, and 400 for Gold). Since the inception of the program, 
the minimum number of volunteer hours for recipients has exceeded one 
million hours. All of this time was spent improving individual's lives 
and each of our communities.
  Congressional Award recipients receive no material reward through the 
program for their efforts except for the medal and certificate which 
are presented to them in recognition of, and thanks for, what they have 
done.
  There are currently around 2000 young people from across the country 
pursing the award, with more entering the program each day. Each of 
these young people exemplify the qualities of commitment to service and 
citizenship that our country embodies, and which we promote through our 
own service in Congress. We believe the least we can do for them is 
encourage them in their efforts and recognize their achievements 
through the Congressional Award program.
  The program is one of the best investments Congress can make. It 
requires no annual appropriation--all of its funding is raised from 
private sources--yet it does so much for so many people.
  The authorization for the Congressional Award program expires this 
year. The bill I introduce today will reauthorize the program for five 
years and make two minor changes in the way the program is 
administered. I encourage each one of my colleagues to show their 
support for every young person who has received or is working on a 
Congressional Award by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 380

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

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999.

       (a) Change of Annual Reporting Date.--Section 3(e) of the 
     Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 802(e)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``April 1'' and inserting ``June 
     1''.
       (b) Membership Requirements.--Section 4(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 803(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraphs (A) and (D), by striking ``Member of 
     the Congressional Award Association'' and inserting 
     ``recipient of the Congressional Award''; and
       (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking 
     ``representative of a local Congressional Award Council'' and 
     inserting ``a local Congressional Award program volunteer''.
       (c) Extension of Requirements Regarding Financial 
     Operations of Congressional Award Program; Noncompliance With 
     Requirements.--Section 5(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``and 
     1998'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 
     and 2004''.
       (d) Termination.--Section 9 of the Congressional Award Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1999'' and 
     inserting October 1, 2004''.
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 381. A bill to allow certain individuals who provided service to 
the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines during World 
War II to receive a reduced SSI benefit after moving back to the 
Philippines.


                          veterans legislation

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that 
would allow Filipino World War II veterans to receive 75 percent of 
their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits after moving back to 
the Philippines. The reduced benefits reflect the lower cost of living 
and per capita income in the Philippines. In order to be eligible, 
Filipino veterans must be receiving SSI benefits as of the date of 
enactment of this legislation, and must have served in the Philippine 
Commonwealth Army and recognized guerilla units during World War II 
before December 31, 1946. Under current law, individuals who receive 
SSI benefits must relinquish those benefits should they choose to 
reside outside the United States.
  There are approximately 25,000 Filipino veterans who became 
naturalized citizens under the Immigration Act of 1990. Due to their 
age, the 1990 Act was subsequently amended to allow these veterans to 
be naturalized in the Philippines. It is unclear how many Filipino 
veterans reside in the United States as a result of the 1990 Act. 
However, some veterans came with the expectation of receiving pension 
benefits and a recognition of their military service. Instead, many are 
on welfare, living in poverty-stricken areas, and financially unable to 
petition their families to immigrate to the United States. Passage of 
this measure would help provide for these veterans upon return to their 
families in the Philippines.
  As some of my colleagues know, I am an advocate for the Filipino 
veterans of World War II. I have sponsored several measures on their 
behalf to correct an injustice and seek equal treatment for their 
valiant military service in our Armed Forces. Members of the Philippine 
Commonwealth Army were called into the service of the United States 
Forces of the Far East, and under the command of General Douglas 
MacArthur joined our American soldiers in fighting some of the fiercest 
battles of World War II. Regretfully, the Congress betrayed our 
Filipino allies by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946. The 1946 Act, 
now codified as 38 U.S.C. 107 deems the military service of Filipino 
veterans as not active service

[[Page 1904]]

for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, 
privileges or benefits. The measure I introduce today will not diminish 
my efforts to correct this injustice. As long as it takes, I will 
continue to seek equal treatment on behalf of the Filipino veterans of 
World War II.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 381

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

     SECTION 1. PROVISION OF REDUCED SSI BENEFIT TO CERTAIN 
                   INDIVIDUALS WHO PROVIDED SERVICE TO THE ARMED 
                   FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PHILIPPINES 
                   DURING WORLD WAR II AFTER THEY MOVE BACK TO THE 
                   PHILIPPINES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 1611(b), 
     1611(f)(1), and 1614(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1382(b), (f)(1), 1382c(a)(1)(B)(i))--
       (1) the eligibility of a qualified individual for benefits 
     under the supplemental security income program under title 
     XVI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) shall not terminate 
     by reason of a change in the place of residence of the 
     individual to the Philippines; and
       (2) the benefits payable to the individual under such 
     program shall be reduced by 25 percent for so long as the 
     place of residence of the individual is in the Philippines.
       (b) Qualified Individual Defined.--In subsection (a), the 
     term ``qualified individual'' means an individual who--
       (1) as of the date of enactment of this Act, is receiving 
     benefits under the supplemental security income program under 
     title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) before December 31, 1946, served in the organized 
     military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the 
     Philippines while such forces were in the service of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military 
     order of the President dated July 26, 1941, including among 
     such military forces organized guerrilla forces under 
     commanders appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized 
     by the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other 
     competent military authority in the Army of the United 
     States.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                  S. 3

  At the request of Mr. Grams, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith), and the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) were added as cosponsors of S. 
3, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
individual income tax rates by 10 percent.


                                  S. 5

  At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 5, a bill to 
reduce the transportation and distribution of illegal drugs and to 
strengthen domestic demand reduction, and for other purposes.


                                  S. 7

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Louisiana 
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 7, a bill to modernize 
public schools for the 21st century.


                                 S. 10

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Nevada 
(Mr. Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 10, a bill to provide health 
protection and needed assistance for older Americans, including access 
to health insurance for 55 to 65 year olds, assistance for individuals 
with long-term care needs, and social services for older Americans.


                                 S. 13

  At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. 13, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax 
incentives for education.


                                 S. 14

  At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the names of the Senator from Idaho 
(Mr. Craig), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 14, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to expand the use of education individual retirement accounts, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 33

  At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. 33, a bill to amend title 
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to exclude prisoners from the 
requirements of that title and section.


                                 S. 74

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 74, a bill to 
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective 
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the 
basis of sex, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 98

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) were added as cosponsors of S. 98, a bill to 
authorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board for 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 147

  At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of S. 147, a bill to 
provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by maintaining Federal 
average fuel economy standards applicable to automobiles in effect at 
current levels until changed by law, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 170

  At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 170, a bill to permit revocation by 
members of the clergy of their exemption from Social Security coverage.


                                 S. 185

  At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), and the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were added as cosponsors of S. 185, a 
bill to establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the 
United States Trade Representative.


                                 S. 211

  At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the names of the Senator from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) were added as cosponsors 
of S. 211, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance 
programs, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 247

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 247, a bill to amend title 17, United States 
Code, to reform the copyright law with respect to satellite 
retransmissions of broadcast signals, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 258

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 258, a bill to authorize 
additional rounds of base closures and realignments under the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 in 2001 and 2003, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 314

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 314, a bill to provide for a 
loan guarantee program to address the Year 2000 computer problems of 
small business concerns, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 315

  At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad) were added as cosponsors of S. 315, a bill to amend the 
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to require the President to report to 
Congress on any selective embargo on agricultural commodities, to 
provide a termination date for the embargo, to provide greater 
assurances for contract sanctity, and for other purposes.

[[Page 1905]]




                                 S. 322

  At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from 
Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors of S. 322, a bill to amend title 
4, United States Code, to add the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to the 
list of days on which the flag should especially be displayed.


                                 S. 327

  At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 327, a bill to exempt 
agricultural products, medicines, and medical products from U.S. 
economic sanctions.


                                 S. 331

  At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 331, a bill 
to amend the Social Security Act to expand the availability of health 
care coverage for working individuals with disabilities, to establish a 
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security 
Administration to provide such individuals with meaningful 
opportunities to work, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 343

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Missouri 
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of S. 343, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 100 percent of 
the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.


                                 S. 344

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Missouri 
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of S. 344, A biil to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a safe harbor for determining 
that certain individuals are not employees.


                                 S. 346

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald) was added as a cosponsor of S. 346, a bill to 
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit the recoupment 
of funds recovered by States from one or more tobacco manufacturers.

                          ____________________