[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 29145-29162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1885. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
more equitable policies relating to overtime pay for Federal employees, 
limitations on premium pay, and the accumulation and use of credit 
hours; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


      EQUITABLE OVERTIME PAY FOR FEDERAL SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, to introduce legislation to 
pay overtime to federal managers and supervisors more equitably.
  I'm proud of our federal workers. Despite seemingly constant 
assaults, our nations's civil servants have persevered to provide 
government that is working better and more efficiently than ever. We've 
seen a streamlined federal government that's continually asked to 
improve services to its customers--the American people. But with 
smaller staffs and the push to increase the federal government's 
productivity, workloads continue to grow. As federal employees' duties 
grow, the need to work

[[Page 29146]]

more overtime hours increases as well. Managers, supervisors and other 
FLSA-exempt employees within the federal government can receive 
overtime, but the current overtime cap presents two problems to these 
employees: they earn less working on overtime than they do for the work 
they perform during the week and they earn less while working overtime 
than the employees they supervise. Who then, can blame prospective 
candidates for supervisory or management positions for declining 
promotions when remaining in their current, non-supervisory position 
can mean more money for their families? If the federal government is to 
continue to recruit and retain a top-notch workforce, then the present 
overtime cap is one issue that we need to address.
  Our legislation will ensure that supervisors and managers neither 
make less working overtime than they would during regular work hours 
nor make less working overtime than those they supervise. This bill 
increases the overtime cap from GS-10 step 1 to GS-12 step 1, the first 
adjustment in the overtime cap since 1966. Our bill doesn't mandate 
that overtime be paid; overtime pay will be implemented as it is 
currently, based on personnel decisions made by individual agencies.
  We should encourage incentives to attract bright and capable workers 
to join the management ranks of the federal government, and this bill 
is one such incentive. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as 
possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire):
  S. 1886. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the Governor of 
a State to waive the oxygen content requirement for reformulated 
gasoline, to encourage development of voluntary standards to prevent 
and control release of methyl tertiary butyl ether from underground 
storage tanks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


          oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with 
Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Clean Air 
Subcommittee, in introducing a bill, S. 1886, to allow the governor of 
a state to waive the oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or 
clean-burning gasoline. The bill also requires U.S. EPA to conduct a 
study on whether voluntary standards to prevent releases of MTBE from 
underground tanks are necessary.
  This is the fifth bill I have introduced in this Congress to address 
the widespread contamination of drinking water by MTBE in my state. I 
do this in hopes that this bill will be a straightforward solution to a 
very serious problem--MTBE detections in ground and surface water in my 
state and at lest 41 other states.
  The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline 
(RFG) be sold in areas with the worst violations of ozone standards: 
Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, 
Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Sacramento. (In addition, some states 
and areas have opted to use reformulated gasoline as way to achieve 
clean air.) Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated 
gasoline, including the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 
2.0 percent oxygen, by weight.
  In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE 
in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. MTBE stands for 
methyl tertiary butyl ether. The problem is that increasingly, MTBE is 
being detected in drinking water. MTBE is a known animal carcinogen and 
a possible human carcinogen, according to U.S. EPA. It has a very 
unpleasant odor and taste, as well.
  The Inhofe-Feinstein bill, S. 1886, would allow governors, upon 
notification to U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0% oxygenate requirement, as 
long as the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for 
reformulated gasoline.
  On July 27, the U.S. EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline 
recommended that the 2 percent oxygenate requirement be ``removed in 
order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-
effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining 
air quality benefits.'' In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of 
MTBE should be reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel 
recommended that ``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state 
authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives 
that pose a threat to drinking water supplies.''
  This bill, while not totally repealing the 2 percent oxygenate 
requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives states that choose to 
meet clean air requirements without oxygenates to do so. It allows 
states that choose an oxygenate, such as ethanol, to do so. Areas 
required to use reformulated gasoline for cleaner air will still be 
required to use it. The gasoline will have a different but clean 
formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet clean air standards.
  MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, 
according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 groundwater 
sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, says the state Department of Health 
Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 287 or 38% had MTBE.
  Nationally, one EPA-funded study found, of 34 states, MTBE was 
present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 states. A U.S. 
Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 
Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that 41 states have 
had MTBE detections in water.
  In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a 
significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE 
be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a 
sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE 
in California, without huge gas price spikes and gasoline supply 
disruptions. In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without 
oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of 
having to meet a federal requirement that is (1) contaminating the 
water and (2) is not necessary to achieve clean air.
  On April 12, 1999, Governor Davis asked U.S. EPA for a waiver of the 
2% oxygenate requirement. I too wrote U.S. EPA--on May 18, 1999; 
December 3, 1998; September 29, 1998; September 28, 1998; September 14, 
1998; November 3, 1997; September 24, 1997; April 22, 1997; and April 
11, 1997. I have met with EPA officials several times and have talked 
directly to Administrator Carol Browner. To date, EPA has not granted 
California a waiver of the two percent. Again, today I call on EPA to 
act. In the meantime, I will continue to urge Congress to act.
  Time is of the essence. California Governor Davis is phasing out MTBE 
in our state, but the federal law requiring 2 percent oxygenates 
remains, putting our state in an untenable position. Refiners needs a 
long lead time to retool their facilities and time is growing short.
  A major University of California study released last year concluded 
that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its 
use poses ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, 
especially ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not 
necessary for reformulated gasoline.
  California has developed a gasoline formula that provide flexibility 
and provides clean air. Called the ``predictive model,'' it guarantees 
clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent 
oxygenates and with no oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron 
and Tosco, are selling MTBE-free gas in California, for example, in the 
Lake Tahoe area.
  Under S. 1886, air standards would still have to be met and gasoline 
would have to meet all other requirements of the federal reformulated 
gasoline program, for example, the limits on benzene, heavy metals, 
emission of oxides of nitrogen.
  This is a minimal bill that will give California and other states the 
relief they need from a unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will 
allow states that want oxygenates in their gasoline to use them and 
those that do not to not use them.

[[Page 29147]]

  The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not degrade 
air quality.
  Importantly, it can stop the contamination of drinking water in may 
state by MTBE.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 1887. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide for an increase in the minimum wage and protect the rights of 
States that have adopted State minimum wage laws; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


               minimum wage state flexibility act of 1999

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as I have listened to those Senators who 
support an increase in the minimum wage speak today--and I've listened 
closely--what I've heard them repeatedly say is that the minimum wage 
is not high enough for workers to afford to put food on the table, pay 
rent or take care of their families. This is a vital point for any 
American family, so I've listened carefully to see if anyone who 
supports an increase could explain why folks in rural states and 
counties have identical living standards of people residing in New York 
City or Boston or Los Angeles. Interestingly enough, this question has 
been essentially left unanswered. No one who supports an increase has 
been able to explain how wages affect workers differently in different 
states, and why that matters so much when we are talking about 
increasing the minimum wage. In an effort to ensure that no worker gets 
left behind and that we are considering all economic scenarios, I feel 
compelled to stand up here and talk about it--about why the number of 
dollars a worker gets paid has a drastically different impact from one 
state to another and even from one county to another. We must consider 
how increasing the minimum wage can make jobs in rural states and 
counties even more scarce; and, about how a wage hike can add even more 
people to the welfare rolls.
  We have heard the old adage that people are entitled to their own 
opinions, but not their own facts. Well, here are the facts. It costs 
over twice as much to live in New York City than it does to live in 
Cheyenne, WY. That's a fact. A $25,000 salary in Cheyenne has the same 
buying power as a $51,000 salary in New York, a $32,000 salary in 
Boston, or a $30,000 salary in Los Angeles. In other words, the average 
Wyoming worker can buy more than twice as much for the same wage as a 
worker in Manhattan. Twice as much. To put an even finer point on this 
staggering disparity, if the average worker in New York City is looking 
to rent an apartment, she would have to spend a whopping $2,730 per 
month--that's almost six times as expensive as the average apartment in 
Cheyenne. An apartment in Cheyenne only costs $481 on average per 
month.
  What about buying a home? The price difference between urban cities 
and rural towns is just as alarming. In New York, the average home 
costs $533,000; in Boston, it costs $244,000 and here in Washington, 
DC, it costs $205,000. In Cheyenne, the cost of the average house is 
much, much less: $116,000. In other rural towns, it's far below 
$100,000--even $50,000.
  Let's look at other necessities. In New York, it is 50 percent more 
expensive to buy groceries than it is in Cheyenne. In Boston, the cost 
of utilities are almost double what they are in Cheyenne. And in Los 
Angeles, medical expenses are a third higher than in Cheyenne. My point 
is this: the cost of living in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles is 
drastically higher than it is in rural towns. This is not one person's 
opinion--it's a fact. And so to propose a wage level increase across 
the board and from coast to coast has an impact on these empirical 
disparities. It is like saying that rent for every apartment in this 
country must not be any higher than an apartment rent in rural towns, 
or that every bag of groceries must not cost any more than what it 
costs at a small town grocery store. No one would ever propose that, 
which is the reason I feel the need to ensure that such economic 
differences are, at the very least, debated.
  It is different--supporters of an increase will argue--because the 
increase just sets a floor, a minimum wage for workers. States like New 
York, and California, and Massachusetts can tack on to that if they 
wish. But doesn't that just beg the question? If there is a minimum 
wage disparity for workers in those states with higher costs of living, 
then why are we raising the minimum wage in every state just to 
compensate for those states where it costs more to live? Why are we 
endangering the economic stability of rural states and counties by not 
considering this reality?
  The raw statistics show that job growth in Wyoming is exactly half of 
job growth nationwide--it's growing, but just not as quick as we would 
like. Each year, at least 50 percent of Wyoming's college graduates 
leave the state, unable to find work because there aren't enough 
businesses to keep pace. What that translates into is this: if the 
minimum wage increase passes, rural areas cold face fewer jobs than 
they already provide. What every student who has ever taken an 
economics course knows is that if you increase the price of something 
(in this case, a minimum wage job), you decrease the demand for those 
jobs. Indeed, a survey of members of the American Economic Association 
revealed that 77 percent of economists believe that a minimum wage hike 
causes job loss. For states that already struggle just to grow small 
businesses and increase the number of jobs they produce, such an 
outcome can be detrimental. And for those parents in Wyoming who tell 
me over and over again how tired they are of seeing their kids leave 
the state to attend college elsewhere--simply because there are not 
enough part-time and full-time entry level jobs to get experience from 
and help pay for their education. One restaurant owner in a small town 
told me that he would increase the wage, but that would mean 5 less 
jobs for bus boys. After the last increase, I also recall college 
students complaining because college grants--or work studies--were 
negatively impacted. What happened was that grant amounts weren't 
increased, so the minimum wage hike resulted in less hours available 
per student under the grant. Students said that it resulted in a net 
loss for them. It's because of unforeseen situations like these, I am 
compelled to bring this issue to the table.
  The legislation I'm proposing today is an attempt to save rural 
states and counties from losing even more precious jobs because 
``Inside the Beltway'' types think that a minimum wage hike might help 
workers in higher cost of living states like Massachusetts, California, 
and New York. This legislation, which I call ``State Flexibility,'' is 
not a perfect solution. What this bill would do is give some discretion 
back to the states to decide whether it wants to remain at the 
increased federal rate of $6.15 an hour, or whether a wage that's 15 
percent under the federal wage works better for the economic growth--
and the workers--of that state.
  Here's how the bill would work. First, just so that there is no 
confusion, it would not prevent any federal minimum wage increases from 
applying nationally. But this legislation would provide state 
legislators the ability to set the minimum wage for the state, or a 
county within the state, at 15 percent under the federal floor. This 
legislation would also allow a Governor on a ``temporary'' basis to set 
the minimum wage for a state or a county at 15 percent less than the 
federal floor for reasons such as high unemployment, slow economic 
growth or potential harm to the state's welfare-to-work programs. I 
have listened carefully to the concerns of one-size-fits-all wage hike 
advocates, who say that the proposed increase is for workers. I agree, 
which is precisely why I'm advocating this approach--to ensure that 
welfare-to-work moms and dads living in counties with high unemployment 
rates aren't excluded. I am confident that nobody in this Chamber wants 
to leave anyone behind.
  I've talked quite a bit today about how increasing the minimum wage 
would affect the small business owner. Having owned a small business in 
Wyoming for 27 years, I can speak with some experience about just how 
detrimental an increase would be on small

[[Page 29148]]

employers and job growth, and how this legislation would offer some 
flexibility to rural states and counties. But one area that I've been 
learning more about is how bad an increase would be on folks who have 
just recently entered the job market through welfare-to-work programs. 
What I've read has startled me, and as a former small business owner, 
the statistics pertaining to rural regions of the country make tangible 
sense to me. So much sense, in fact, that I am more convinced than ever 
that just increasing the minimum wage is not as sound a policy as 
advocates suggest.
  First. Just as a minimum wage increase would slow job creation in 
rural states and negatively affect people who have been employed in 
their field for years, college students looking for jobs, or new 
graduates, it would also severely impact welfare recipients looking for 
work. University of Wisconsin economist Peter Brandon has actually 
determined that minimum wage hikes actually increase duration on 
welfare by more than 40 percent.
  Second. The Educational Testing Service has concluded that fully two-
thirds of welfare recipients have skills that qualify, at best, for 
entry-level employment, and many fall far below. And what researchers 
at Boston University have shown is that lower-skilled adults are 
displaced after a minimum wage hike by teens and students who are 
perceived as having better skills.
  Third. Undoubtedly due to the above, research from Michigan State 
University shows that minimum wage hikes push as many families into 
poverty (due to job loss, for example), as they pull out of poverty.
  These daunting statistics sound alarms if we haphazardly push through 
a minimum wage hike that has a heck of a good sound bite, but an awful 
aftertaste when the dust settles and a number of workers are left 
behind. This proposal, however, speaks to this point. If a state 
legislature or a Governor sees a potential for a detrimental impact on 
welfare to work programs within that state, they can act to keep the 
rate at 15 percent under the federal floor. This is simple, rational 
discretion. This legislation instills the same ideals incorporated in 
the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 Workforce Investment Act. 
Congress and the President entrusted states with administering welfare-
to-work and our nation's job training programs. This bill would 
complement those landmark laws by saying that states can adjust the 
mandatory wage--ensuring that no worker gets left behind. We must not 
turn a blind eye when state flexibility matters most.
  As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and 
Training, my colleagues can be assured that the problem of economic 
disparities spurred by the lack of consideration by federal mandates 
will continue until we take a closer look. It's real and it deserves 
our attention. It is my hope that by discussing this bill, the Senate 
will begin to exclude the politics from the minimum wage debate and 
start examining the full spectrum of this issue. I am serious about 
addressing this and I fully intend to debate it during the second 
session. The media and interest groups have asked that we not 
politicize the minimum wage. I couldn't agree more, which is why I ask 
you to carefully consider not leaving anyone behind. 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. 1887

       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 ``Minimum Wage State 
     Flexibility Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. STATE MINIMUM WAGES AND AREA STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) State Minimum Wages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section and sections 13(a) and 14, an employer in a 
     State that has adopted minimum wage legislation that meets 
     the requirements of paragraph (2) shall pay to each of its 
     employees a wage at a rate that is not less than the rate 
     provided for in such State's minimum wage legislation.
       ``(2) Requirement.--This section and sections 13(a) and 14 
     shall only apply in such States that have adopted minimum 
     wage legislation that sets wages for at least 95 percent of 
     the workers within the State at an hourly rate that is not 
     less than 85 percent of the hourly rate generally applicable 
     for the year involved under subsection (a).
       ``(3) Emergency circumstances.--The chief executive officer 
     of a State, through an executive order (or its equivalent), 
     may set wages applicable to at least 95 percent of the 
     employees within the State (or particular county of the 
     State) at an hourly rate that is not less than 85 percent of 
     the hourly rate generally applicable for the year involved 
     under subsection (a) if any of the following circumstances 
     exist:
       ``(A) The State welfare-to-work programs would be 
     sufficiently harmed by mandating a minimum wage rate above an 
     hourly rate equal to 85 percent of the hourly rate required 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(B) The State (or county) is experiencing a period of 
     high unemployment.
       ``(C) The State (or county) is experiencing a period of 
     slow economic growth.
     This paragraph shall only apply to an executive order (or its 
     equivalent) that is effective for a period of 12 months or 
     less.''.
       (b) Applicability of Minimum Wage to the Territories.--
     Notwithstanding section 5 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
     U.S.C. 205), the provisions of section 6 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the territories and possessions of 
     the United States (including the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands) in the same manner as such provisions apply 
     to the States.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on April 1, 
     2000.
       (2) Exception for certain states.--In the case of a State 
     which the Secretary of Labor identifies as having a 
     legislature which is not scheduled to meet prior to the 
     effective date described in paragraph (1) in a legislative 
     session, the date specified in such paragraph shall be the 
     first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the 
     close of the first legislative session of the State 
     legislature that begins on or after such effective date, and 
     in which a State law described in section 6(h)(2) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (as added by subsection (a)) may 
     be considered. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the 
     case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each 
     year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular 
     session of the State legislature.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1888. A bill to support the protection of coral reefs and other 
resources in units of the National Park System and other agencies under 
the administration of the Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


          Carol Reef Resource Conservation and Management Act

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
enhance our ability to understand and conserve coral reef ecosystems 
and the ocean life that depends on them.
  In the past few years, Congress and the administration have 
recognized the importance of coral reefs to ocean ecologies and grown 
increasingly concerned about the challenges facing our reefs. 1997 was 
recognized as ``Year of the Reef,'' and the House passed House 
Concurrent Resolution 8 which recognized the significance of 
maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems by 
promoting stewardship for reefs. In 1998 the President signed Executive 
Order 13089 establishing the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force under joint 
leadership of the Department of Commerce and Department of the 
Interior. The Executive order directs federal agencies to take steps to 
protect, manage, research and restore coral ecosystems. The bill I am 
introducing today supplements these actions by establishing a targeted 
national program for coral reef research, monitoring, and conservation 
for areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. It 
is a companion measure to S. 1253, introduced earlier this year by 
Senator Inouye, that authorizes a coral reef program through the 
Department of Commerce.
  Mr. President, the importance of reefs to our economy, culture, and 
to the stability of our shorelines is becoming increasingly apparent as 
we begin to understand more about the interdependence of reefs and 
human activity. Substantial research shows that reefs are under greater 
stress than ever before, both from natural causes and

[[Page 29149]]

human-induced damage. We need to act now before the decline of reefs 
becomes irreversible.
  This measure authorizes coral reef research and conservation efforts 
through the Department of the Interior. The Department manages over 
2,000 acres of sensitive coral reef habitat and adjacent submerged land 
at 20 national wildlife refuges and 9 units of the National Park System 
in Hawaii, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the territories of 
Guam and American Samoa in the Pacific. Of the 4.2 million acres of 
reefs in the United States, few have been mapped, assessed, or 
characterized. There is still much to learn about the location and 
biology of coral reefs, their susceptibility to disease, and how they 
can be restored and sustained.
  This measure establishes a coral reef conservation matching grant 
program that will leverage federal monies with non-federal funds raised 
through a non-profit foundation. This initiative is consistent with the 
efforts of the President's Coral Reef Task Force established by 
Executive Order No. 13089, and with the activities of other agencies, 
such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that are 
involved in coral reef research, monitoring, restoration and 
conservation.
  Under my legislation, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 
provide grants for coral reef conservation projects in areas under the 
Department's jurisdiction, through a merit-based, competitive program. 
Grants will be awarded on a 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent non-
federal basis. The Secretary may also enter into an agreement with one 
or more foundations to solicit private funds dedicated to coral 
conservation programs. Up to 80 percent of the funding will be 
distributed equally between the Atlantic/Caribbean and the Pacific 
Ocean, and 20 percent of the funding can be used for emerging 
priorities or threats identified by the Secretary in consultation with 
the Coral Reef Task Force. Grants may be made to any relevant natural 
resource management authority of a State or territory of the United 
States, to other government authorities with jurisdiction over coral 
reefs as well as to educational or non-governmental institutions or 
organizations with demonstrated expertise in coral reef conservation. 
Priority will be given to projects that promote reef conservation 
through cooperative projects with local communities; that involve non-
governmental organizations, academic or private institutions or local 
affected governments; that enhance public knowledge and awareness of 
coral reef resources; and that promise sound scientific information on 
the extent, nature and condition of reef ecosystems.
  Most importantly, this legislation encourages community-based 
conservation efforts that involve local communities, nongovernmental 
organizations, and academic institutions in the protection of reefs. It 
brings people and communities together to participate in, and learn 
more about, the conservation of ocean resources--coral reefs and the 
many species that depend on reef ecosystems. Only by making ordinary 
people responsible for reef conservation, can we alter the types of 
human activity and behavior that are responsible for the adverse 
impacts on coral reefs that we glimpse today.
  Mr. President, the people of Hawaii, our Nation's only insular state, 
are perhaps more aware of the subtle and interdependent relationship we 
have with coral reefs.
  But all citizens should appreciate that the health of coral reefs is 
emblematic of the health of our oceans--upon which we depend for so 
many resources, from clean water to food to pharmaceuticals. Coral 
reefs are the rain forests of the ocean--a wild, beautiful, complex 
bountiful resource whose importance to life on earth, much less 
ourselves, is only beginning to be understood. But the harsh reality is 
that we are going to lose our reefs if we do not act soon, before we 
fully understand their role in the great web of marine life.
  There are simply more people on the globe, in more places in the 
ocean, than ever before. Boats, anchors, snorkelers and divers are 
entering the water in increasing numbers. We are removing things from 
the water at an increasing rate--exotic salt water fish for home 
aquariums and pieces of coral for houses and home decor. The amount of 
sediment and pollution runoff onto coral reefs increases with every 
major shoreline development. It is vital that we start now, to research 
and preserve our reefs, before human impacts cause irreversible damages 
to a resource whose essential role in nature is only just beginning to 
be understood.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, which represents a critical step in helping us understand 
and live sustainably with coral reef ecosystems.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1888

       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 ``Coral Reef Resource 
     Conservation and Management Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) coral reefs have great commercial, recreational, 
     cultural, environmental, and aesthetic value;
       (2) coral reefs--
       (A) provide habitat to \1/3\ of all marine fish species;
       (B) are essential building blocks for biodiversity;
       (C) are instrumental in forming tropical islands;
       (D) protect coasts from waves and storms;
       (E) contain an array of potential pharmaceuticals; and
       (F) support tourism and fishing industries in the United 
     States worth billions of dollars;
       (3) studies indicate that coral reefs in the United States 
     and around the world are being degraded and severely 
     threatened by human and environmental impacts, including 
     land-based pollution, overfishing, destructive fishing 
     practices, vessel groundings, and climate change;
       (4) the Department of the Interior--
       (A) manages extensive acreage that contains sensitive coral 
     reef habitat and adjacent submerged land at 20 national 
     wildlife refuges and 9 units of the National Park System--
       (i) in the States of Hawaii and Florida; and
       (ii) in the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     United States Virgin Islands; and
       (B) maintains oversight responsibility for additional 
     significant coral reef resources under Federal jurisdiction 
     in insular areas, territories, and surrounding territorial 
     waters in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea;
       (5) few of the 4,200,000 acres of coral reefs of the United 
     States have been mapped or have had their conditions assessed 
     or characterized;
       (6) the Department of the Interior conducts scientific 
     research and monitoring to determine the structure, function, 
     status, and condition of the coral reefs of the United 
     States; and
       (7) the Department of the Interior, in cooperation with 
     public and private partners, provides technical assistance 
     and engages in management and conservation activities for 
     coral reef habitats.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to conserve, protect, and restore the health of coral 
     reef ecosystems and the species of fish, plants, and animals 
     that depend on those ecosystems;
       (2) to support the monitoring, assessment, management, and 
     protection of coral reef ecosystems over which the United 
     States has jurisdiction (including coral reef ecosystems 
     located in national wildlife refuges and units of the 
     National Park System);
       (3) to augment and support the efforts of the Department of 
     the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and other members of the Coral Reef Task 
     Force;
       (4) to support research efforts that contribute to coral 
     reef conservation;
       (5) to support education, outreach, and enforcement for 
     coral reef conservation;
       (6) to provide financial resources and matching funds for 
     partnership efforts to accomplish the purposes described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (4); and
       (7) to coordinate with the Coral Reef Task Force and other 
     agencies to address priorities identified by the Coral Reef 
     Task Force.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Coral.--The term ``coral'' means any species of the 
     phylum Cnidaria, including--
       (A) any species of the order Antipatharia (black corals), 
     Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), 
     Stolonifera (organpipe corals and others), Alcyanacea (soft 
     corals), or Coenothecalia (blue corals), of the class 
     Anthozoa; and

[[Page 29150]]

       (B) any species of the order Hydrocorallina (fire corals 
     and hydrocorals) of the class Hydrozoa.
       (2) Coral reef.--The term ``coral reef'' means the species 
     (including reef plants and coralline algae), habitats, and 
     other natural resources associated with any reef or shoal 
     composed primarily of corals within all maritime areas and 
     zones subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 
     including Federal, State, territorial, or commonwealth waters 
     in the south Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, and 
     the Pacific Ocean.
       (3) Coral reef conservation project.--The term ``coral reef 
     conservation project'' means an activity that contributes to 
     or results in preserving, sustaining, or enhancing any coral 
     reef ecosystem as a healthy, diverse, and viable ecosystem, 
     including--
       (A) any action to enhance or improve resource management of 
     a coral reef, such as assessment, scientific research, 
     protection, restoration and mapping;
       (B) habitat monitoring and any species survey or monitoring 
     of a species;
       (C) any activity necessary for planning and development of 
     a strategy for coral reef management;
       (D) community outreach and education on the importance and 
     conservation of coral reefs; and
       (E) any activity in support of the enforcement of laws 
     relating to coral reefs.
       (4) Coral reef task force.--The term ``Coral Reef Task 
     Force'' means the task force established under Executive 
     Order No. 13089 (June 11, 1998).
       (5) Foundation.--The term ``foundation'' means a foundation 
     that is a registered nonprofit organization under section 
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, or any other territory 
     or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 4. CORAL REEF RESOURCE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide grants for 
     coral reef conservation projects in accordance with this 
     section.
       (b) Eligibility.--The Secretary may award a grant under 
     this section to--
       (1) any appropriate natural resource management authority 
     of a State--
       (A) that has jurisdiction over coral reefs; or
       (B) the activities of which affect coral reefs; or
       (2) any educational or nongovernmental institution or 
     organization with demonstrated expertise in marine science or 
     coral reef conservation.
       (c) Matching Requirements.--
       (1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     the Federal share of the cost of a coral reef conservation 
     project that receives a grant under this section shall not 
     exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the project.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a coral reef conservation project that receives a grant 
     under this section may be provided in cash or in kind.
       (3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the 
     matching requirement under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the cost of the project is $25,000 or less; or
       (B) the project is necessary to undertake, complete, or 
     enhance planning and monitoring requirements for coral reef 
     areas under--
       (i) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); or
       (ii) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
       (d) Allocation.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     this section so that--
       (1) not less than 40 percent of the grant funds available 
     are awarded for coral reef conservation projects in the 
     Pacific Ocean;
       (2) not less than 40 percent of the grant funds available 
     are awarded for coral reef conservation projects in the 
     Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea; 
     and
       (3) the remaining grant funds are awarded for coral reef 
     conservation projects that address emergency priorities or 
     threats identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Coral Reef Task Force.
       (e) Annual Funding Priorities.--After consultation with the 
     Coral Reef Task Force, States, regional and local entities, 
     and nongovernmental organizations involved in coral and 
     marine conservation, the Secretary shall identify site-
     specific and comprehensive threats and constraints that--
       (1) are known to affect coral reef ecosystems (including 
     coral reef ecosystems in national wildlife refuges and units 
     of the National Park System); and
       (2) shall be considered in establishing annual funding 
     priorities for grants awarded under this subsection.
       (f) Project Review and Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review and rank coral 
     reef conservation project proposals according to the criteria 
     described in subsection (g).
       (2) Peer review.--
       (A) In general.--For projects that have a cost of $25,000 
     or more, the Secretary shall--
       (i) provide for merit-based peer review of the proposal; 
     and
       (ii) require standardized documentation of the peer review.
       (B) Expedited process.--For projects that have a cost of 
     less than $25,000, the Secretary shall provide an expedited 
     peer review process.
       (C) Individual grants.--As part of the peer review process 
     for individual grants, the Secretary shall request written 
     comments from the appropriate bureaus or departments of the 
     State or other government having jurisdiction over the area 
     where the project is proposed to be conducted.
       (3) List.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make available a list describing projects 
     selected during the previous fiscal year for funding under 
     subsection (g).
       (g) Project Approval Criteria.--The Secretary shall 
     evaluate and select project proposals for funding based on 
     the degree to which each proposed project--
       (1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act; and
       (2) would--
       (A) promote the long-term protection, conservation, 
     restoration, or enhancement of coral reef ecosystems in or 
     adjoining areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
     the Interior;
       (B) promote cooperative conservation projects with local 
     communities, nongovernmental organizations, educational or 
     private institutions, affected local governments, 
     territories, or insular areas;
       (C) enhance public knowledge and awareness of coral reef 
     resources and sustainable use through education and outreach;
       (D) develop sound scientific information on the condition 
     of and threats to coral reef ecosystems through mapping, 
     monitoring, research and analysis; and
       (E) increase compliance with laws relating to coral reefs.
       (h) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to implement this 
     Act.
       (2) Project approval.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement subsection (f), including 
     requirements for project proposals.
       (3) Consultation.--In developing regulations under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall identify priorities for coral 
     reef resource protection and conservation in consultation 
     with agencies and organizations involved in coral and marine 
     conservation, including--
       (A) the Coral Reef Task Force;
       (B) interested States;
       (C) regional and local entities; and
       (D) nongovernmental organizations.
       (i) Administration.--
       (1) Foundation involvement.--
       (A) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into an agreement 
     with 1 or more foundations to accept, receive, hold, 
     transfer, solicit, and administer funds received or made 
     available for a grant program under this Act (including funds 
     received in the form of a gift or donation).
       (B) Funds.--A foundation that enters into an agreement 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) invest, reinvest, and otherwise administer funds 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) maintain the funds and any interest or revenues earned 
     in a separate interest-bearing account that is--

       (I)(aa) an insured depository institution, as the term is 
     defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813); or
       (bb) an insured credit union, as the term is defined in 
     section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752); 
     and
       (II) established by the foundation solely to support 
     partnerships between the public and private sectors that 
     further the purposes of this Act.

       (2) Review of performance.--
       (A) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2000, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a review 
     of each grant program administered by a foundation under this 
     subsection.
       (B) Assessment.--Each review under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include a written assessment describing the extent to which 
     the foundation has implemented the goals and requirements of 
     this section.
       (j) Transfers.--
       (1) In general.--Under an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (i)(1)(A), the Secretary may transfer funds 
     appropriated under section 5(b) to a foundation.
       (2) Use of transferred funds.--Amounts received by a 
     foundation under this subsection may be used for matching, in 
     whole or in part, contributions (whether in currency, 
     services, or property) made to the foundation by private 
     persons and State and local government agencies.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $20,000,000

[[Page 29151]]

     for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (b) Limitation on Administrative Funds.--Not more than 6 
     percent of the amounts appropriated under this section may be 
     used for program management and administration under this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 1889. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
provide for joint resolutions on the budget, reserve funds for 
emergency spending, strengthened enforcement of budgetary decisions, 
increased accountability for Federal spending; accrual budgeting for 
Federal insurance programs, mitigation of the bias in the budget 
process toward higher spending, modifications in paygo requirements 
when there is an on-budget surplus, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that when one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days 
to report or be discharged.


            comprehensive budget process reform act of 1999

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we are now in the final stages of 
completing the FY 2000 Appropriation bills. We will soon end the first 
session of the 106th Congress. Looking back, I must say, we have had 
some successes, and I am proud of these achievements. However, the 
biggest failure, in my judgment, is that we have failed to learn the 
lessons from our past two years' experience and we have failed to 
maintain fiscal discipline due to our seriously flawed budget process.
  That's why I rise today to introduce legislation that would reform 
the federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline, and restore 
government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully 
represented in Washington.
  Mr. President, after last year's abuse of the budget/appropriation 
process, many of us realized that the federal budget process became a 
reckless game in which the team roster was limited to a handful of 
Washington politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers were 
relegated to the sidelines. This not only weakened the nation's fiscal 
discipline but also undermined the system of checks and balances 
established by the Constitution.
  At the beginning of the 106th Congress, I argued repeatedly in this 
chamber that the key to a successful Congress was to pursue 
comprehensive budget process reforms. I introduced legislation to 
achieve these goals. I was pleased that Senate leaders included budget 
process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. 
Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet materialized.
  As a result, this year's appropriation process is almost a play-by-
play of 1998. Congress over-used advanced appropriations, and used 
directed scoring, emergency spending and other budgetary techniques to 
dodge fiscal discipline and significantly increase government spending.
  Mr. President, our failure can be traced to our seriously flawed 
budget process. Twenty-five years ago, Congress tried to change its 
budget practices and get spending under control by passing the 
Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 years, our national debt 
has grown from $540 billion to $5.7 trillion.
  Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process 
has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time 
understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of 
budget smoke and mirrors to circumvent the intent of the Congress. The 
flawed process allows members to vote to control spending in the budget 
and then turn right around and vote for increased appropriations. The 
process encourages spending increases rather than spending control. It 
encourages continued fiscal abuse, waste, and irresponsibility.
  Clearly, we need to immediately pursue comprehensive reform to ensure 
the integrity of our budget and appropriations process and avoid 
repeating the same mistakes we made in the past two years. We must do 
this early in the year before we begin to face appropriation pressures.
  This is why I am introducing the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform 
Act. This legislation is the companion bill of HR 853, which was a 
bipartisan effort led by Congressmen Nussle and Cardin. It has been 
reported by the House Budget Committee. There are also a number of good 
budget reform proposals in the Senate I have earlier supported. Reforms 
introduced by our Budget Committee Chairman Senator Domenici are 
important and I strongly support his leadership in this area. My 
legislation is complementary to but broader than Senator Domenici's 
efforts.
  Mr. President, let me highlight my legislation. The legislation will 
force us to pass a legally-binding federal budget, set aside funds each 
year in the budget for true emergencies; strengthen the enforcement of 
budgetary controls; enhance accountability for Federal spending; 
display unfunded liabilities for Federal insurance programs; mitigate 
the bias toward higher spending, modify Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) 
procedures to accommodate budget surpluses; and ensure the Social 
Security surplus will be protected.
  The core of the legislation will provide for an annual joint budget 
resolution, rather than a concurrent resolution, thus making it a 
legally binding budget through a law requiring the President's 
signature.
  I believe this is a critical step in reforming the budget process. If 
Congress and the President agree on a Joint Budget Resolution at the 
beginning of the process, appropriators in Congress would be legally 
bound to stay within those spending limits. It forces confrontation at 
the earliest stages of the budget process, leaving adequate time for 
legislating detail and minimizing disputes at the end of the process 
which threaten to shutdown the government.
  The second component of the bill will redefine emergency spending and 
create a reserve fund to pay for emergencies. Emergency spending was 
traditionally used for unanticipated wars and natural disasters that 
took life and severely damaged property. Because emergency spending 
today is effectively exempt from congressional spending controls, 
Congress and the Administration have used this as an opportunity to 
bust the budget for a lot of spending that isn't emergency related at 
all.
  Last year alone, Congress appropriated $35 billion for so-called 
emergencies. This year again, over $24 billion of emergency spending is 
appropriated. Since 1991, emergency spending has totaled over $145 
billion. Most ``emergencies'' were used to fund regular government 
programs, not unanticipated events. Emergency spending is sought as a 
vehicle to add on even more spending priorities. This has gone too far. 
We need a better way to budget for emergencies. Most of this spending 
can be planned within our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen 
regularly--why not budget for them?
  My legislation will end this abuse of emergency spending. It requires 
both the President and the Congress to budget up front for emergencies 
by setting aside dollars in an emergency reserve fund. The reserve fund 
will contain an amount at least equal to the 5-year historical average 
of amounts provided for true emergencies. It includes a clear 
definition of ``emergencies.'' My legislation prohibits release of 
funds from the reserve pending Budget Committee certification that: (1) 
A situation has arisen that requires funding for ``the prevention or 
mitigation of, or response to, loss of life of property, or a threat to 
national security'', and (2) The situation is ``unanticipated''--with 
``unanticipated'' defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.
  In the event that Congress and the President fail to agree on annual 
appropriation measures by October 1, my legislation will allow the 
budget resolution signed into law earlier in the year to automatically 
kick in. This will effectively prevent any future government shutdowns 
due to disagreements on spending priorities between Congress and the 
Administration.
  Mr. President, the 1995 federal government shutdown is still fresh in 
our minds. It was the longest shutdown in history and caused financial 
damage

[[Page 29152]]

and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President refused 
to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans. The 
shutdown shook the American people's confidence in their government and 
in their elected officials.
  Since 1997, I, along with Senator McCain, have been advocating an 
automatic continuing resolution, or CR, as we call it, to prevent a 
government shutdown. I was able to obtain a commitment from the Senate 
leadership of both parties to pursue this legislation separately in the 
near future. But no action has followed. If we had an automatic CR, we 
would not have to go through bitter battles at the end of every fiscal 
year.
  The virtue of an automatic CR is that it would allow us to debate 
issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities 
while we continue to keep essential government functions operating. The 
American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a government 
shutdown.
  Mr. President, there will always be plenty of uncertainties involved 
in our budget and appropriations process. The automatic kick-in of the 
budget resolution in the bill I introduce today will work the same as 
my automatic CR.
  Another flaw of the budget process is so-called budget baselines. 
When a government program is going to increase by 4.5 percent per year, 
anyone with common sense would think that is a budget increase, not a 
budget ``cut.'' But under baseline budgeting it could mean ``cut.'' Lee 
Iaccoca once stated that if business used baseline budgeting the way 
Congress does, ``they'd throw us in jail.''
  This is a typical budget gimmick. Any proposed spending levels below 
current baselines are perceived as program reductions, allowing some 
politicians to claim savings while permitting others to claim 
increases. Baseline budgeting is biased in favor of more spending. It 
is not honest budgeting but rather very misleading. My legislation 
would require Congress and the President to use this year's actual 
spending total as the baseline for the next year's budget. If we decide 
to spend more than the current year, we are increasing the budget. If 
we spend less, we are cutting it. Let's call a spade a spade.
  Mr. President, we have entered an era of budget surplus. It is 
estimated that in the next ten years, our strong economy will generate 
an over $1 trillion non-Social Security surplus. If we don't return 
this surplus to taxpayers in the form of tax relief and debt reduction, 
the government will spend it all. However, the current budget process 
limits our ability to provide tax relief for working Americans.
  The budget law requires that all tax cuts be offset with tax 
increases or cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare. Tax cuts 
may not be paid for by cutting discretionary spending, such as wasteful 
government programs. This rule, called the PAYGO rule, applies 
regardless of whether there is a surplus or deficit. The PAYGO rule 
effectively limits options with respect to reducing taxes because it 
precludes using spending cuts in discretionary programs to offset tax 
cuts. Thus there is a built-in bias in favor of higher levels of 
spending and taxation in the current budget process.
  My legislation would amend Pay-As-You-Go requirements to permit any 
portion of the on-budget surplus, excluding Social Security, to be used 
for tax cuts.
  Related to the PAYGO rule reform, my legislation also creates a 
lockbox to lock in every penny that is saved from floor amendments to 
appropriations bills and use it to reduce federal government spending. 
Spending levels in the budget resolution and any caps on discretionary 
spending would be automatically reduced by the amount in the floor 
amendment.
  The bill requires committees to submit a plan for reauthorizing all 
programs within their jurisdictions in 10 years. It also prohibits the 
Congress from considering a bill that creates a new spending program 
unless it is sunset within 10 years. My legislation also guarantees 
Members the right to offer amendments subjecting proposed entitlements 
to the enhanced oversight of the appropriations process.
  Under the current budget process, we have over 20 budget functions, 
and a half dozen different committees with jurisdiction over one budget 
function. This has complicated the process greatly. To simplify the 
process, my bill collapses the 20 non-enforceable budget functions 
currently used into total (aggregate) spending and revenue levels, with 
separate categories for discretionary and mandatory spending. It is 
simple, and easy enough for everyone to understand.
  Mr. President, a number of the Federal insurance programs (excluding 
Social Security and Medicare) that have a looming impact on the federal 
budget are not included in our budget process. The liabilities caused 
by these programs could be enormous. Budgeting for these liabilities 
will give us better control over long-term programs. My legislation 
requires the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management 
and Budget to report periodically on long-term budgetary trends, to 
help make Members aware of the future budgetary implications of 
spending programs.
  Finally, Mr. President, it's vitally important that we save the 
entire Social Security surplus, not for government spending, not for 
tax relief, but exclusively for Social Security.
  I believe we need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress 
and the President do not touch the Social Security surplus. My 
legislation requires that if any fiscal year's appropriations end up 
spending the Social Security surplus, a sequestration will be 
automatically triggered to reduce government spending across the board 
in the amount of the Social Security surplus that was used. Entitlement 
programs like Social Security and Medicare would not be cut. In 
addition, the bill reaffirms the protected status of Social Security 
under the current budgetary law.
  Mr. President, it is true that our short-term fiscal situation has 
improved greatly due to the continued growth of our economy. However, 
our long-term financial imbalance still poses a major threat to the 
health of our future economic security. Without budget process reform, 
we will find ourselves again and again making the same mistakes which 
result in bigger government, more spending and more abuse. We need to 
spend more time on oversight and reauthorizing expiring programs rather 
than on endless budget battle at the end of every fiscal year.
  President Reagan summed up the real problem of our budget process 
when he pointed out ``this budget process does not serve the best 
interests of the nation, it does not allow sufficient review of 
spending priorities, and it undermines the checks and balances 
established by the Constitution.''
  If the Congress adopts the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, 
it will ensure a budget process that serves the best interests of the 
nation and allow for careful policy and spending deliberation. That's 
why I am introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. L. CHAFEE:
  S. 1891. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to improve literacy through family literacy projects; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions


              the literacy involves families together act

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I have the enormous honor of 
introducing legislation to renew and strengthen the Even Start Family 
Literacy Act. On October 1, 1985, my father stood at this desk, where I 
stand today, and introduced the Even Start Act. He did so because of 
his profound commitment to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged 
members of our society. As I introduce this bill, which attempts to 
break the cycle of illiteracy that divides our Nation into haves and 
have nots, I do so in an effort to continue that commitment to 
disadvantaged Americans.
  Last week, an identical bill was introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Bill Goodling, chairman of

[[Page 29153]]

the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Chairman Goodling 
introduced the original Even Start Act in the House on May 16, 1985. 
Both versions of the Even Start Act were reintroduced in the 100th 
Congress and became law as part of the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and 
Secondary Improvement Act Amendments of 1987.
  There are approximately 40 million Americans who suffer from 
illiteracy. Like a disease, illiteracy often goes undetected. Like a 
disease, illiteracy too often is passed from generation to generation. 
Like a disease, illiteracy is painful for families to endure. There is 
no certain cure for illiteracy, but by renewing and expanding the Even 
Start Family Literacy Program, we offer tens of thousands of families 
hope for a better future.
  There are many controversies related to education policy at the 
local, state and federal levels. There are heartfelt, passionately held 
opinions about everything from funding levels to particular teaching 
techniques. Nevertheless, there are a few things on which nearly 
everyone agrees: parents are their children's first and most important 
teachers, and children who are read to early and often do better in 
school than children who are not.
  As the father of three young children, reading together is a part of 
daily life that I take for granted. I suspect that it is difficult for 
most of the members of this body to imagine what it would be like not 
to have the ability to sit down with your children or grandchildren to 
read a favorite story. But for millions of Americans, reading a bedtime 
story or helping with a son or daughter's homework assignment is 
impossible.
  The Even Start Family Literacy Act brings families together to learn. 
Parents who do not have a high school degree or its equivalent are 
eligible for this program. They learn the basic educational skills that 
enable them to improve their own situations and, perhaps even more 
importantly, they learn the skills they need to help their children in 
school. At the same time, children from birth to age 8 receive 
appropriate educational services.
  The bill I am introducing makes two notable changes in the Even Start 
program. First, it enables a child, who also is receiving title I 
services, to remain in the Even Start program beyond age 8. It also 
requires Even Start programs to utilize research-based teaching 
techniques for children. In addition to these improvements, it 
authorizes the Institute for Literacy to investigate the most effective 
means of improving adults' literacy skills, and it increases the 
authorization level to $500 million so that more families can be 
served.
  Currently, there are four Even Start programs in Rhode Island 
receiving federal funds. Each of these programs serves between 25 and 
40 families. In Newport, the Sullivan School Children's Opportunity 
Zone/Family Center has entered into an Even Start partnership with New 
Visions--the local Head Start provider, the Newport Public Library, the 
Florence Gray Center--which provides housing for low-income families, 
the Community College of Rhode Island and the Newport Hospital. Half of 
its participants are non-English readers.
  In Woonsocket, the Fairmont School is the Even Start center, with 
partners from Literacy Volunteers of Northern Rhode Island and 
Woonsocket Head Start, among others. Three cities and towns--Johnston, 
North Providence, and Smithfield, have joined together to create the 
Tri-Town Community Action Even Start Program. Finally, the Cunningham 
School Even Start Program has established a partnership with Pawtucket 
Public Schools and Libraries, the Pawtucket Day Nursery, and a range of 
education and social service providers.
  Each of these programs has utilized existing early childhood and 
adult education services. Together they are striving to address the 
needs of the whole family.
  In the 12 years since the Even Start Program first was created, our 
nation has been propelled into the information age. Americans are 
increasingly dependent on technology for a wide range of needs and 
services. This new age magnifies our need for a literate society. As we 
continue to experience technological advancements, the educationally 
disadvantaged fall further behind. I believe that the Even Start Family 
Literacy Act as reauthorized by this bill--the Literacy Involves 
Families Together Act--is critically important to our Nation's 
children, our Nation's families, and our Nation's future.
  I see Senator Jeffords on the floor. Before I yield to him, I thank 
him for his generosity to me and for his leadership in the area of 
education. Chairman Jeffords has the daunting task of leading the 
Senate's efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. From what I know of Senator Jeffords, this major undertaking 
couldn't be in more able hands.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this 
bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we were all deeply saddened just a few 
days ago at the death of Senator John Chafee. Certainly, that sadness 
can never diminish completely. But having his son with us today and 
starting right off by introducing an excellent piece of legislation 
certainly brings us strong hope for the future.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for 
introducing the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act. 
This legislation reauthorizes one of the most effective education 
programs, Even Start.
  The Even Start Act was first introduced in 1985 by Representative 
Bill Goodling, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, 
and our former colleague, Senator John Chafee.
  When first created, the goal of the Even Start program was to develop 
a comprehensive literacy program that improves educational 
opportunities for disadvantaged families by focusing on parenting 
education, early childhood education, and adult education. Since its 
establishment a little over a decade ago, Even Start has grown from 76 
local programs serving 2,500 families to an estimated 600 programs 
assisting over 36,000 parents and 48,000 children.
  The most recent evaluation of the Even Start program illustrated that 
both the adults and children who participated in the program 
significantly improved their reading and basic education skills. The 
evaluation specifically pointed out that the educational gap that 
existed at the beginning of the school year for first term Even Start 
students was reduced by approximately two-thirds when the Even Start 
students were tested at the conclusion of the school year.
  The most recent national survey of reading achievement by fourth 
graders indicates that forty-four percent of school age children in 
this nation are reading below a basic level of achievement.
  Sadly, the statistics are also dismal when analyzing adult literacy 
skills. The most recent National Adult Literacy Survey found a total of 
44 million adults, almost 25 percent of the adult population in the 
United States, were at the lowest literacy level. The lowest literacy 
level means that 44 million adults in this country have demonstrated 
difficulty in the reading and writing skills essential for carrying out 
daily routines. The uniqueness of the Even Start program is that it 
provides services to the entire family--it enables families to learn 
together.
  I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for making literacy a very 
high priority. I am especially pleased that he chose to sponsor the 
reauthorization of the Even Start program which was first introduced to 
this body by his father.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Rhode Island on the 
Literacy Involves Families Together Act, the LIFT Act, as a part of the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which the 
Senate will consider early next year and on other education and 
literacy initiatives that will enable all of our Nation's citizens to 
have the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the global 
economy.
  I again commend the Senator from Rhode Island for being out here so 
fast

[[Page 29154]]

and quick with a very important piece of legislation. I share his 
enthusiasm and look forward to working with him.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1892. A bill to authorize the acquisition of the Valles Caldera, 
to provide for an effective land and wildlife management program for 
this resource within the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  THE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in Northern New Mexico there is a truly 
unique working ranch on an historic Mexican land grant known as Baca 
Location No. 1. The ranch is currently owned and managed by the Baca 
Land and Cattle Company, and it comprises most of a collapsed, extinct 
volcano known as the Valles Caldera. The Valles Caldera is a beautiful 
place with rolling meadows, crystal-clear streams, roaming elk, and 
vast stands of Ponderosa pines. I am very proud to announce we are 
introducing legislation today that will authorize the Secretary of 
Agriculture to acquire this property which is a truly unique 95,000 
acre working ranch in New Mexico.
  For Senator Bingaman and I, and a few others working on this issue, 
this is a not-so-instant replay from last year. Last year around this 
time, Senator Bingaman and I announced that we had reached agreement 
with the President on a comprehensive plan to acquire the Baca Ranch 
and, at the same time, to provide for disposal of designated surplus 
land from the Federal inventory. Those two concepts, embodied in Titles 
I and II of last year's bill, have survived in this new bill.
  Title I provides for an innovative trust structure to manage this 
ranch, when it is purchased by the Federal Government. Title II 
provides a process for compensating citizens who await Federal payment 
for land trapped within vast areas of Federal land, so-called 
``inholders'', and the orderly disposal of Federal land that has 
already been declared surplus by the Federal Government.
  As you may recall, Senator Bingaman began this process with his 
purchase bill in 1997. The process of purchasing the Baca Ranch for the 
public was jump-started last summer when President Clinton and I, 
flying on Air Force One to Washington, reached an agreement on the 
concept of an innovative trust arrangement to manage the Baca, if it 
were to become part of Federal land holdings. The President's response 
led to a number of rounds of negotiations between representatives of 
the Administration and our offices.
  Finally, after literally thousands of hours of discussion at all 
levels, agreement was reached, we introduced the bill and a similar one 
was introduced in the House of Representatives. And, in what I frankly 
admit was almost miraculous, we were able to persuade Congress to 
provide $40 million in last year's appropriations process as earnest 
money for any Baca Ranch purchase that might be authorized by Congress.
  Then, unexpected disaster struck. The owners of the Baca Ranch 
decided not to sell the land after all. I said to many of you then that 
I thought the purchase was dead.
  However, like Lazarus the Baca Ranch purchase lives again. I must 
thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership in this matter, Congresswoman 
Wilson for her extremely effective work behind the scenes in the House 
to promote the purchase, and the new Congressman from Santa Fe, Mr. 
Udall, for his support. And, I must thank the Administration for its 
commitment.
  This kind of cooperation has brought us to this day of good news. 
Today, Senator Bingaman and I again introduce a bill to authorize both 
the purchase of the Baca Ranch by the federal government and the 
orderly disposal of surplus lands in order to pay for debts the 
government owes to ``inholders.'' I understand that Representatives 
Wilson and Udall will introduce companion legislation in the House.
  Now, let's talk for a moment about the $l0l million price tag the 
Baca Ranch purchase carries. The $40 million that we won last year from 
the Appropriations process had been spent. The President didn't ask for 
it in his budget, logically, since he thought the ranch was no longer 
for sale. And, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees in the House 
and Senate failed to appropriate the $40 million for the same reason--
it seemed that the purchase was dead.
  However, the President recently announced a $101 million purchase 
agreement between the federal government and the Dunigan family, the 
current owners of the Baca Ranch. Quickly, we jumped to action, and in 
October, the New Mexico delegation succeeded in restoring the $40 
million originally approved last year for the purchase. As a member of 
the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been involved 
in talks between congressional negotiators and the White House over 
several issues in the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Bill. Those talks 
have led to a tentative agreement to provide an additional $61 million, 
on top of the $40 million restored in October, for the Baca Ranch 
purchase. If the $101 million appropriation becomes law, its release 
would be subject to congressional authorization of the land 
acquisition, as well as a review of the ranch appraisal by the 
Comptroller General of the United States.
  This is a terrific development and could very well help in moving 
this authorizing legislation through Congress next year. The drive to 
bring this beautiful ranch into public ownership has helped gain this 
funding. As important as the money, however, is retaining the dual 
nature of this legislation. This bill contains two major titles: one to 
authorize purchase of the Baca Ranch, which draws most of the 
headlines; and the other to begin a major reform in federal land 
management. The President has signed onto both; we have signed onto 
both. Both Titles must eventually become law in order for the Baca 
Ranch purchase to proceed.
  I have visited the Baca Ranch, and I can tell you that it is one 
beautiful piece of property. The Valles Caldera is one of the world's 
largest resurgent lava domes. The depression from a huge volcanic 
eruption over a million years ago is more than a half-mile deep and 
fifteen miles across at its widest point. The land was originally 
granted to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de Vaca under a 
settlement enacted by Congress in 1860. Since that time, the property 
has remained virtually intact as a single, large, tract of land.
  The careful husbandry of the Ranch by the Dunigan family provides a 
model for sustainable land development and use. The Ranch's natural 
beauty and abundant resources, and its proximity to large municipal 
populations could provide numerous recreational opportunities for 
hiking, fishing, camping, cross-country skiing, and hunting. The Baca 
is a unique working ranch. It is not a wilderness area, and can best be 
protected for future generations by continuing its operation as a 
working asset through a unique management structure. This legislation 
provides that unique management under a trust that may allow for its 
eventual operation to become financially self-sustaining.
  Mr. President, because of the ranch's unique character, I am not 
interested in having it managed under the usual federal authorities, as 
is typical of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or the 
National Park Service. Under the current state of affairs on our public 
lands, Forest Service and BLM management is constantly hounded by 
litigation initiated by some of the same groups that wish to bring this 
ranch into government ownership. The Valles Caldera National Preserve 
will serve as a model to explore alternative means of federal 
management and will provide the American people with opportunities to 
enjoy the Valles Caldera and its many resources.
  The unique nature of the Valles Caldera, and its resources, requires 
a unique management program, dedicated to appropriate development and 
preservation under the principle of the highest and best use of the 
Ranch in the interest of the public. Title I of this legislation 
provides the framework necessary to fulfil that objective. It 
authorizes the acquisition of the Baca

[[Page 29155]]

Ranch by the Forest Service. At the same time, it establishes a 
government-owned corporation, called the Valles Caldera Trust, whose 
sole responsibility is to ensure that the ranch is managed in a manner 
that will preserve its current unique character, and provide enumerable 
opportunities for the American people to enjoy its splendor. Most 
importantly to me, however, the legislation will allow for the ranch's 
continued operation as a working asset for the people of north-central 
New Mexico, without further drawing on the thinly-stretched resources 
of the federal land management agencies.
  I would like to emphasize that both portions of this bill are 
milestones in federal land management. This legislation independently 
addresses the acquisition of this unique property for public use and 
enjoyment, while solving current land management problems related to 
surplus land disposal and the acquisition of inholdings from owners who 
truly want to sell their land.
  Currently, approximately one-third of New Mexico's land is in federal 
ownership or under federal management. These public lands are an 
important resource that require our most thoughtful management. In 
order to better conserve existing national treasures for future use and 
enjoyment, we have devised a good plan to dispose of surplus land 
through sale or exchange into private, State, or local government 
ownership.
  In many cases, it is just too costly to keep this unneeded land under 
federal ownership, and it can be more effectively managed in other 
hands. Title II of this bill, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 
Act, calls for the orderly disposition of surplus federal property on a 
state by state basis, and provides land managers with needed tools to 
address the problem created by ``inholdings'' within federally managed 
areas. There are currently more than 45 million acres of privately 
owned land trapped within the boundaries of Federal land management 
units, including national parks, national forests, national monuments, 
national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.
  In other cases, however, landowners who want out have been waiting 
generations for the Federal Government to set aside funding and get 
around to acquiring their property. This legislation directs the 
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to reach out to those 
property owners who want to sell their land. It also instructs the 
Departments to establish a priority for the acquisition of these 
inholdings based, in part, on how long the owner has been waiting to 
sell.
  An issue related to the problem created by inholdings is the 
abundance of public domain land which the Bureau of Land Management has 
determined it no longer needs to fulfill its mission. Under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM has identified an 
estimated 4 to 6 million acres of public domain lands for disposal.
  Let me simply clarify that point--the BLM already has authority under 
an existing law, FLPMA, to exchange or sell lands out of Federal 
ownership. Through its public process for land use planning, when the 
agency has determined that certain lands would be more useful to the 
public under private or local governmental control, it is already 
authorized to dispose of these lands, either by sale or exchange.
  The sale or exchange of this land would be beneficial to local 
communities, adjoining land owners, and federal land mangers, alike.
  An orderly process for the efficient sale or exchange of land 
identified for disposal does not currently exist. The Federal Land 
Transaction Facilitation Act addresses this problem by providing that a 
portion of the proceeds generated from the sale of these lands will be 
used to fulfill all legal requirements for the transfer of these lands 
out of Federal ownership. The majority of the proceeds generated would 
be used to acquire inholdings from those who want to sell their land.
  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will schedule 
hearings to address the many issues regarding Federal purchase of the 
Baca Ranch in the near future. Congress has tried to resolve the 
difficult challenges in acquiring this property before, and failed; 
cooperation among the parties may bring success this time around. I 
want to thank everyone who has helped in this 18-month-long effort. I 
believe that in the end, we will be able to stand together and tell the 
American people that we truly have accomplished two great and 
innovative things with this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am confident that if we get an Interior 
appropriations bill, the money will be in it. Everyone should know that 
it is subject to two conditions: A full authorization bill being passed 
and signed and subject to the General Accounting Office reviewing the 
procedures for the appraisal of the property and assuring the Congress 
of what they have done, in a sense with the expertise that is 
consistent with what must be used in order to satisfy Congress that 
there is a fair purchase price involved in the agreement.
  I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and very much 
appreciate the leadership he has shown on this important issue as well. 
This is a truly bipartisan effort we have made on behalf of New Mexico. 
This is not just an issue of the 106th Congress. This is an issue that 
our Sate has been pursuing for many decades. Back in the early 1960s, 
one of our predecessors in the Senate, Senator Clinton Anderson, made a 
valiant effort to bring the Baca Ranch into Federal ownership so the 
public could enjoy it and so its preservation could be assured for 
future generations.
  After 3 years of effort in that direction, he abandoned the effort 
because of the infighting that occurred among competing interests. 
Then, Mr. President, over two years ago I rose in this chamber to 
introduce a bill to authorize the acquisition of the Baca Location #1, 
a ranch which comprises about ninety percent of the magnificent Valles 
Caldera. Today I rise to cosponsor a bill with Sen. Domenici that will 
not only authorize purchase of the Baca Ranch, but also a unique method 
of management for this property.
  A world renowned volcanic caldera sweeping approximately fifty miles 
in circumference, the Valles Caldera is the ecological heart of the 
Jemez Mountains. It's unparalleled vast upland meadows broken by 
forested volcanic domes and intertwined with 27 miles of winding trout 
streams, are home to a stunning variety of wildlife including: mountain 
lions, black bear, whitetail deer, redtail hawks, eagles, and wild 
turkey. It has also been the breeding ground for one of the largest elk 
herds in the lower forty-eight states.
  There has been a desire on the part of the Dunigan family, the 
current owners of that land, to see that it go into public ownership, 
and the father of the of the current owners made that attempt before he 
died. They have recently decided they want to carry through with that 
wish of his and accordingly, as Senator Domenici indicated, the 
negotiations between the Dunigan family and the Federal Government have 
proceeded and now have come to a good resolution. This presents us with 
an incredible opportunity for the American people.
  The potential of this land is enormous:
  It could be used as a grassbank to allow ranchers to rest and 
rehabilitate hundreds of thousands of acres of public range land in New 
Mexico without having to lose production in the process;
  It could provide incredible opportunities for scientific study and 
education, in the geophysical and biological sciences;
  It currently is, and could continue to be, one of the premier hunting 
and fishing destinations in the country;
  It's scenic value makes it an ideal location for the film industry. 
In fact it has often been used as a backdrop for movies, TV series, and 
commercials;
  It presents amazing opportunities for outdoor recreation including, 
hiking, camping, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and 
photography; and
  As with many of the scenic wonders in my home state of New Mexico, 
there are places within the caldera that are

[[Page 29156]]

of tremendous cultural significance to various Native American tribes 
in the area.
  Clearly if this property were to be brought into public ownership it 
should be managed to preserve its incredible natural condition, while 
maintaining a balance with the various ways it could be used and 
enjoyed. The experiment called for in this bill sets out broad policy 
goals for the land (to preserve its natural treasures and to make it 
financially self-sustaining) and establishes a nine member board of 
trustees that shall set management policy for what would become the 
Valles Caldera Preserve. By requiring that each trustee have experience 
from differing but critical perspectives, this trust may be able to 
reach a balance that will meet the needs of the land and the public.
  The nine members of this board would include:
  (1) the Supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest;
  (2) the Superintendent of Bandelier National Monument;
  (3) a person with expertise in range management and the livestock 
industry;
  (4) a person with expertise in fish and wildlife management including 
game and non-game species;
  (5) a person with expertise in sustainable forest management;
  (6) an active participant in a conservation organization;
  (7) a person with financial management and business expertise;
  (8) a person with expertise in the cultural and natural history of 
the region; and finally;
  (9) someone active in the State or local government in New Mexico 
familiar with the customs of the local area.
  At least five of these trustees would be required to be residents of 
New Mexico. It would be an experiment, and would expire within twenty 
years unless it proves successful and is renewed by Congress.
  A second part of this bill, not related to the management of the 
Valles Caldera Preserve, seeks to address the goal of the Federal land 
management agencies to consolidate their land holdings, by first 
helping to promote the sale of the widely scattered parcels of land 
that the Bureau of Land Management has designated ``suitable for 
disposal,'' and secondly by using the proceeds of those sales towards 
the acquisition of inholdings within our public lands, areas of 
critical environmental concern, and other lands of exceptional resource 
value. This program would be authorized for ten years.
  Just as the Baca Ranch can be seen as a large inholding surrounded by 
federal land which is worthy of public ownership, there are many other 
inholdings in our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and public 
lands, where private owners are willing and eager to sell to 
government. At the same time, there are some two million acres of 
public land that the BLM has determined are too remote, isolated, or 
otherwise situated to make management more of a burden than a benefit 
to the Federal tax payer.
  Often these lands are small 20 and 40 acre parcels surrounded by, or 
forming checker boarded areas with, private or state land. Though 
consolidating these lands has long been a goal of Federal land 
managers, the costs of surveying the land for endangered species, 
archeological artifacts, and for the purpose of determining a fair 
market value has hampered these efforts. This bill would create a 
mechanism to accelerate this work.
  Mr. President, this bill is important because it holds the real 
promise of bringing the entire Valles Caldera into public ownership 
after so many failures in the past. It represents a compromise which 
Sen. Domenici and I have worked on with the Administration, the House 
Members of the New Mexico delegation, and with some consultation with 
the majority staff of the Energy & and Natural Resources Committee. We 
have also received innumerable comments from various constituencies.
  Like all negotiated legislation, each constituency and interest group 
would like to change a piece here or there. However, I believe it is 
overall a good bill which meets the broadest concerns raised by those 
constituencies and should be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces. 
My sincere hope is that we will be able to pass it substantially as it 
is early next session.
  The other issue that Senator Domenici spoke to is the appropriating 
of funding for the purchase. I also am extremely pleased with that. I 
know the administration has felt strongly that we should try to get the 
full funding for the purchase of the ranch accomplished in this session 
of the 106th Congress before we adjourn. I know Senator Domenici has 
worked hard to accomplish that. I also worked with the Appropriations 
Committee members and the administration to full fund this purchase. I 
am very pleased to know that we are going to see that full 
appropriation at such time as we have an Interior appropriations bill 
signed into law.
  This is an important effort for the State of New Mexico. I believe 
when the 106th Congress is finally completed, not the end of this week 
or next week but a year from now, when we look back and see what was 
accomplished in that 106th Congress that is important to the State of 
New Mexico and the people of New Mexico, this acquisition of the Baca 
Ranch will be at the top of the list.
  I very much appreciate the good bipartisan effort that has gone into 
this.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1893. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for Indian 
tribes for gaming purposes under certain conditions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                    gaming clarification act of 1999

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate companion 
bill to legislation sponsored in the other body by the distinguished 
Representative from southwestern Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This bill 
intends to clarify the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
or IGRA, in Missouri.
  Specifically, this bill would prevent Indian Tribes from setting up 
casino gambling operations in areas of Missouri where non-Indians 
currently are prohibited from gambling. This is vitally important, if 
for no other reason than to maintain harmony in these communities. It 
is also essential to preserve the family-friendly atmosphere that draws 
so many vacationers to these areas. Branson, Missouri, in particular, 
has attained national fame as an extraordinarily beautiful area, with 
fun activities and entertainment suitable for parents and children 
alike.
  An invasion of gambling into this setting would wreck this tremendous 
asset. It would bring all the well-known pathologies and social 
problems that accompany gambling. I oppose introducing gambling into 
these areas and will do all I can to fight it. We must protect the 
family spirit that makes Branson a national destination for 
vacationers. We must do likewise for other Missouri communities that 
offer similar sanctuaries from the hyperactive stress of modern life, 
as well as great places for residents to raise children, build homes, 
and do business.
  The bill I introduce today is very similar to one I offered in 1997. 
That bill would also have prevented Tribally owned casinos in areas of 
Missouri where non-Indian casinos are currently illegal. It became 
necessary when a Tribe in Oklahoma applied to put land in the small 
town of Seneca, Missouri into trust status for gambling purposes. They 
wanted to operate a casino where no one else could do so legally and to 
do so despite overwhelming community objection. Fortunately, the 
Interior Secretary indicated to me that he would not approve that 
application, and the Tribe ultimately withdrew its gambling 
application. Thus, the issue was satisfactorily resolved without 
legislation.
  More recently, however, a flurry of applications has been filed to 
put Indian-owned land into trust for non-gambling activities. I am glad 
the Tribes are finding that non-gambling activities, as proposed uses 
for these lands, can be more beneficial and more friendly to their 
communities and neighbors. However, a great many of my constituents are 
concerned that these trust applications might make it easier to apply 
for gambling later.

[[Page 29157]]

They worry that some Tribes might be seeking to approve gambling 
casinos through the back door. This bill will eliminate that concern by 
clarifying the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with respect 
to Missouri.
  When the Congress adopted IGRA in 1988, it intended for a State's 
general policy toward gambling to be considered in evaluating 
applications by Indian Tribes to start casino operations. Drawing upon 
past court decisions in this area, the Congress provided that a Tribe 
might be eligible to conduct casino gambling on their lands in a State 
``that permits such gambling for any purpose by any person, 
organization, or entity.'' Once a State decides to move away from a 
criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling, and adopts instead a 
civil/regulatory stance, Tribes are to have the opportunity to engage 
in gambling in that State as well. To that end, they may ask the State 
to negotiate a compact to regulate those casinos.
  Generally, this approach helps ensure public peace while also 
ensuring the Tribes get to participate in gambling on more-or-less the 
same basis as non-Indians in the State. If the people of a State, 
through their legislature or through direct legislation, decide to 
legalize casino gambling ``by any person, organization, or entity,'' 
they cannot simply exclude the Tribes in favor of whatever non-Indian 
gambling companies might have the inside track in the State government. 
The Tribes are to have the same opportunity as the non-Indian 
companies.
  But, if the people of a State maintain a general prohibition on 
gambling--whether as an expression of moral opposition or for some 
other reason--the Tribes will also need to respect this public opinion 
just like everyone else. I believe this is the situation in Missouri, 
whose constitution includes just such a general prohibition on casino 
gambling, with an exception for casinos based on the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers.
  Article III of the Missouri Constitution sets out the powers of the 
Missouri General Assembly. Section 39 of that article makes certain 
things expressly outside of the legislature's authority. This is where 
the State's general prohibition on gambling appears. ``The General 
Assembly shall not have power,'' it says, ``to authorize lotteries or 
gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall enact laws to prohibit the 
sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets.'' It says prohibit, not 
regulate.
  Gambling, in general, is still prohibited by State law. Under section 
572.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, ``the crime of gambling'' is 
a class C misdemeanor, unless committed by a professional player, in 
which case the crime is a class D felony. This means the crime of 
gambling is punishable by fine of up to $300 in the case of a 
misdemeanor. A professional player may be fined up to $5,000 or twice 
the amount of any gain received, up to a limit of $25,000. These 
criminal offenses also carry potential prison sentences, of 15 days for 
a misdemeanor and up to 5 years for felony gambling.
  The State constitution does not give the General Assembly authority 
to legalize these crimes. The power to legalize gambling was withheld 
from the General Assembly by the express terms of the constitution. Any 
change would require a constitutional amendment, ratified by the voters 
of Missouri.
  The voters did exercise their authority to authorize very limited 
exceptions, without removing the general prohibition on legalized 
gambling. In the case of casino gambling, the voters authorized the 
General Assembly to legalize certain games only on excursion gambling 
boats and floating facilities docked along the Missouri and Mississippi 
Rivers. Again, the voters granted these limited exceptions without 
disturbing the general constitutional prohibition on gambling, which is 
a criminal offense elsewhere in the State.
  The initiative that created this exception took this approach because 
many areas of Missouri have strong objections to gambling casinos. 
Particularly in southwest Missouri, many citizens hold strong moral 
objections to gambling. Many others simply fear that gambling would 
destroy the family atmosphere that makes the Branson area a desirable 
and unique vacation spot. Still others are concerned that gambling 
disproportionately preys on the hopes of the poor, making it a 
particularly regressive economic activity.
  We can see this expression of the community's view in the votes that 
were cast on the Missouri and Mississippi riverboat casino initiative. 
In the November 1994 election, voters in Taney county (where Branson is 
located) voted against the casino initiative 73% to 27%. In Greene 
county (where southwest Missouri's largest metropolitan area of 
Springfield is located), 58% of voters opposed the riverboat casinos. 
Finally, in Newton county (the home of Seneca, Missouri, where a Tribe 
once sought to impose a casino on the local residents), 62% of voters 
opposed the constitutional amendment.
  Knowing the strength of these communities' opinions on gambling in 
general, the sponsors of the initiative petition drive had no real 
alternative but to leave the general gambling prohibition intact while 
carving out a very narrow geographic exception for Missouri's two major 
rivers. Otherwise, the initiative would almost certainly have failed 
statewide as well. Therefore, the constitutional amendment reassured 
southwest Missourians that they likely would not feel the change 
directly--it would affect only the two rivers far away from them, and 
would not bring casinos into the family oriented Branson and 
Springfield areas. The general constitutional prohibition on gambling 
stayed in force.
  The limited exception for riverboat casinos, therefore, did not 
change the State's posture on gambling from a criminal/prohibitory one 
to a civil/regulatory one. In areas such as the Branson, Missouri area, 
gambling is still a criminal offense. IGRA's requirement that the State 
negotiate to allow Tribally owned casinos is not triggered, since 
casino gambling in that area is not permitted by ``any person, 
organization, or entity.'' As I mentioned earlier, that's the language 
IGRA uses to trigger a State's obligation to negotiate with the Tribes 
to create a regulatory compact.
  Tribes wanting to operate casinos on the Missouri or Mississippi 
Rivers might have a case under IGRA, since there are persons, 
organizations, or entities authorized to gamble there. But this is not 
true in Branson, Springfield, or other areas off the rivers where 
gambling is still prohibited and where the General Assembly lacks 
constitutional authority to legalize it even if it wanted to.
  This view of IGRA is not undermined, as some claim, by the 
Mashantucket Pequot case decided in 1990. In that case, the 
Mashantucket Pequots sued Connecticut to force the State to negotiate a 
casino gambling compact because the State authorized ``Las Vegas 
Nights'' as a fundraising activity for certain nonprofit organizations. 
Connecticut had argued that the occasional Las Vegas Nights did not 
mean that the State had decriminalized gambling in general.
  However, those nonprofits authorized to operate casinos, even on a 
very occasional basis, fall within the express language of ``any 
person, organization, or entity'' used in IGRA, which is what the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals found. Allowing nonprofits to engage in 
some forms of casino gambling did move the State of Connecticut into a 
civil/regulatory stance on casino gambling. The State did not 
absolutely prohibit it; it regulated the type of organization permitted 
to engage in gambling. Thus, IGRA was triggered by the express language 
of the law.
  This is completely different from the situation in Missouri, where 
all persons, organizations, and entities are flatly prohibited, by 
criminal law, from casino gambling anywhere but on the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers. The Mashantucket Pequot case does not apply to the 
Missouri situation. Geographic limitations, like in Missouri, were not 
at issue in that case.
  Thus, the language of this bill does not really change the current 
policy of IGRA. It simply makes explicit what is already plainly 
implicit under current

[[Page 29158]]

legislation and case law. It would take express notice of the provision 
in Missouri's constitution on gambling and recognize that Missouri 
still maintains a criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling off the 
rivers.
  Because some pro-gambling advocates are attempting to read the 
Mashantucket Pequot case too broadly, trying to make it apply to 
Missouri when it clearly does not, this bill is essential. In the past, 
a number of Tribes have tried to use that argument to try to set up 
casinos in Missouri--even in a small town like Seneca, nowhere near the 
Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. Because some people are trying to read 
into the Mashantucket Pequot case a view that is really not there, this 
bill writes into law the correct interpretation.
  I appreciate the hard work my colleague in the other chamber did on 
this bill, and am glad to have the opportunity to resolve this issue 
once and for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1894. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain land to Park 
County, Wyoming; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     north cody, wy land conveyance

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to 
provide for the conveyance of economic development land for Park 
County, WY.
  The management of our public lands and natural resources is often 
complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to 
accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss Federal land 
issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that 
capture and enjoy the support from a wide array of interests; however, 
the bill Senator Enzi and I are introducing today offers just such a 
unique prospect. Project coordinators and involved parties have spent a 
great deal of time incorporating the concerns of various individuals by 
presenting their plans to agency and congressional representatives.
  This parcel of land was identified by the Bureau of Land Management 
and Bureau of Reclamation as an unsuitable area for public domain and 
the agencies have recommended that it be disposed of by the Federal 
Government. The Park County Commissioners subsequently approached the 
Wyoming Congressional Delegation about allowing the county to pursue 
economic development efforts that would be beneficial to the local town 
and surrounding communities. Specifically, this legislation is needed 
to allow the Federal Government to sell approximately 190 acres of land 
to Park County, WY for the appraised value of $240,000. The county 
commissioners intend to work with an economic development group to 
attract new businesses to the area and allow other companies to expand 
at an industrial park adjacent to the conveyance land.
  Mr. President, this bill enjoys the support of many different groups 
including county government officials as well as the local community. 
This proposal will provide for the creation of a number of private 
sector jobs in a county that has 82 percent Federal land ownership. It 
is my hope that the Senate will seize this opportunity to allow a local 
community to improve their livelihoods and economic prospects.
  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. 1894

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

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO PARK COUNTY, WYOMING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the parcel of land described in subsection (d) has been 
     withdrawn from the public domain for reclamation purposes and 
     is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (2) the land has been subject to a withdrawal review, a 
     level I contaminant survey, and historical, cultural, and 
     archaeological resource surveys by the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (3) the Bureau of Land Management has conducted a cadastral 
     survey of the land and has determined that the land is no 
     longer suitable for return to the public domain; and
       (4) the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land 
     Management concur in the recommendation of disposal of the 
     land as described in the documents referred to in paragraph 
     (2).
       (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Park County, 
     Wyoming.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (c) Conveyance.--In consideration of payment of $240,000 to 
     the Secretary by the County, the Secretary shall convey to 
     the County all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection 
     (d).
       (d) Description of Property.--The parcel of land described 
     in this subsection is the parcel located in the County 
     comprising 190.12 acres, the legal description of which is as 
     follows:

             Sixth Principal Meridian, Park County, Wyoming

T. 53 N., R. 101 W.                                             Acreage
  Section 20, S\1/2\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\..........................5.00
  Section 29, Lot 7................................................9.91
           Lot 9..................................................38.24
           Lot 10.................................................31.29
           Lot 12..................................................5.78
           Lot 13..................................................8.64
           Lot 14....................................................04
           Lot 15..................................................9.73
           S\1/2\NE\1/4\NE\1/4\NW\1/4\.............................5.00
           SW\1/4\NE\1/4\NW\1/4\..................................10.00
           SE\1/4\NW\1/4\NW\1/4\..................................10.00
           NW\1/4\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\..................................10.00
           Tract 101..............................................13.24
  Section 30, Lot 31..............................................16.95
           Lot 32.................................................16.30

       (e) Reservation of Rights.--The instrument of conveyance 
     under subsection (c) shall reserve all rights to locatable, 
     salable, and leasable oil and gas reserves.
       (f) Leases, Easements, Rights-of-way, and Special Use 
     Permits.--The conveyance under subsection (c) shall be 
     subject to any land use leases, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     special use permits in existence as of the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (g) Environmental Liability.--
       (1) Liability of the future owners.--
       (A) Finding.--Congress finds that--
       (i) the United States has in good faith exercised due 
     diligence in accordance with applicable laws (including 
     regulations), in an effort to identify any environmental 
     contamination on the parcel of land described in subsection 
     (d); and
       (ii) the parcel is free of any environmental contamination.
       (B) Release from liability.--The United States holds 
     harmless and releases from all liability any future owners of 
     the conveyed land for any violation of environmental law or 
     other contamination problem arising from any action or 
     inaction of any tenant of the land that vacates the lease 
     before the date of the conveyance under subsection (c).
       (2) Liability of tenants.--A tenant of the parcel of land 
     described in subsection (d) on the date of the conveyance or 
     thereafter shall be liable for any violation of environmental 
     law or other contamination problem that results from any 
     action or inaction of the tenant after the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (h) Use of Land.--The conveyance under subsection (c) shall 
     be subject to the condition that the County--
       (1) use the land for the promotion of economic development; 
     or
       (2) transfer the land to a local organization formed for 
     the purpose of promoting economic development.
       (i) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (c) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1896. A bill to amend the Public Building Act of 1959 to give 
first priority to the location of Federal facilities in central 
business areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


                    the downtown equity act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good 
friend, the senior senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing 
the ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999.''
  The location of federal buildings and facilities have a tremendous 
impact on local communities. We are introducing the ``Downtown Equity 
Act'' to ensure that the federal government is a good neighbor that 
promotes the vibrancy of communities throughout the country.
  Guidance for federal agencies on the location of their facilities 
exists in two executive orders. Unfortunately, these directives are at 
times inconsistent with each other and have been used to support 
different goals. This became clear to me when I worked closely with the 
General Services Administration (GSA), the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) and the city of

[[Page 29159]]

Burlington. In 1998, I called together a meeting with all these 
interested parties to discuss eligible locations for a new INS facility 
in downtown Burlington. Officials from the city cited one executive 
order about locating buildings in downtown areas while INS officials 
countered with another executive order that promotes the location of 
federal facilities in rural areas. Instead of complementing one another 
to promote a reasonable policy, the two executive orders are negating 
each other and clearly neither have enough teeth to result in the 
policy proclaimed in either order.
  Mr. President, managing a city is a difficult enough task. Mayors and 
city managers across the country should not have to also wade through 
dueling executive orders when they share the same goals as the 
Administration to re-energize town centers. The federal government 
needs to set a clear policy on the location of federal buildings in 
downtown areas. Without legislation to clarify this policy, agencies 
make decisions about the location of buildings and operations that can 
undercut the viability of central business districts, encourage sprawl, 
degrade the environment, and have an adverse impact on historical 
economic development patterns. Federal facilities should be sited, 
designed, built and operated in ways that contribute to--not detract 
from--the economic well-being and character of our cities and towns. 
Federal facilities can have a tremendous impact and we need to make 
sure that location decisions do not erode the character and quality of 
life in our cities and towns. I want to prevent a repeat of the 
experiences in Vermont, and I know that Senator Baucus has many of the 
same concerns in Montana.
  The Downtown Equity Act of 1999 clarifies the intention of these 
dueling executive orders by directing federal officials to give 
priority to locating federal facilities in central business areas. This 
bill does not pit urban areas versus rural areas, but instead promotes 
the siting of these facilities in downtown areas--urban or rural. By 
adopting this legislation, the Federal government can become a leader 
in the effort to limit sprawl and support the economic vitality of 
central business areas.
  There is a fundamental problem with development that our bill also 
tries to address: it's more expensive to build and rent in a 
traditional downtown area than to build on an empty site outside of a 
business district. Downtown areas have great difficulty competing in 
the procurement process because of the higher costs generally 
associated with downtown areas. Sometimes, despite the best intentions 
of federal officials, sites with the lowest absolute cost are 
predisposed to win. This approach is too simplistic. Our ``Downtown 
Equity Act of 1999'' directs the General Services Administration to 
study the feasibility of establishing a system for giving equal 
consideration to both the absolute and adjusted costs of locating in 
urban and rural areas, and between projects inside and outside of 
central business areas. While the absolute cost of projects will always 
be important, a more balanced and robust consideration of the costs of 
a project is needed.
  The benefits of limiting sprawl, supporting historic development 
patterns, and revitalizing our downtown central business areas can 
mitigate the higher costs associated with constructing, leasing, and 
operating Federal establishments inside central business areas. Unless 
the overriding mission of the agency or economic prudence absolutely 
dictate otherwise, location of Federal facilities should be supportive 
of local growth management plans for downtown central business areas.
  When Federal landlords or tenants arrive in town, we have every right 
to expect that they will be good neighbors. Beyond that, the Federal 
government also needs to be a leader in the effort to limit sprawl and 
protect the environment and the character of our cities and towns. 
Livable and thriving central business districts can be a renewable 
resource, and the Federal government should be part of the solution, 
not part of the problem.
  Senator Baucus and I look forward to working with our colleagues and 
with the Executive Branch to bring much needed reform to the decision-
making process that governs the siting of Federal facilities. We all 
recognize that decisions to prevent or limit sprawl will always be made 
locally, but the Federal Government can do much to help our communities 
act on their decisions. And, the Federal Government must stop being an 
unwitting accomplice to sprawl by siting buildings outside of downtown 
areas.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and 
a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1896

       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 ``Downtown Equity Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that locating Federal 
     facilities in central business areas--
       (1) strengthens the economic base of cities, towns, and 
     rural communities of the United States and makes them 
     attractive places to live and work;
       (2) enhances livability by limiting sprawl and providing 
     air quality and other environmental benefits; and
       (3) supports historic development patterns.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that Federal agencies recognize the 
     implications of the location of Federal facilities on the 
     character, environment, economic development patterns, and 
     infrastructure of communities;
       (2) to ensure that the General Services Administration and 
     other Federal agencies that make independent location 
     decisions give first priority to locating Federal facilities 
     in central business areas;
       (3) to encourage preservation of historic buildings and 
     stabilization of historic areas; and
       (4) to direct the Administrator of General Services to 
     study the feasibility of establishing a system for meaningful 
     comparison of Federal facility procurement costs between 
     central business areas and areas outside central business 
     areas.

     SEC. 3. LOCATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 22. LOCATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Priority for Central Business Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     as otherwise provided by law, in locating (including 
     relocating) Federal facilities, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall give first priority to central business areas.
       ``(2) Exception.--The priority required under paragraph (1) 
     may be waived if location in a central business area--
       ``(A) would materially compromise the mission of the 
     agency; or
       ``(B) would not be economically prudent.
       ``(b) Implementation.--
       ``(1) Actions by administrator.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 
     implement the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to 
     locating Federal facilities--
       ``(i) in public buildings acquired under this Act; and
       ``(ii) in leased space acquired by the Administrator under 
     section 210(h) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(h)); and
       ``(B) report annually to Congress--
       ``(i) on compliance with subsection (a) by the 
     Administrator in carrying out--

       ``(I) public building location actions under this Act; and
       ``(II) lease procurement actions under section 210(h) of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (40 U.S.C. 490(h)); and

       ``(ii) on compliance with this section by Federal 
     agencies--

       ``(I) in acting under delegations of authority under this 
     Act; and
       ``(II) in the case of lease procurement actions, in using 
     leasing authority delegated under the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).

       ``(2) Actions by federal agencies.--Each Federal agency 
     shall--
       ``(A) comply with the regulations promulgated by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(B) report annually to the Administrator concerning--
       ``(i) the actions of the Federal agency in locating public 
     buildings under this Act; and
       ``(ii) lease procurement actions taken by the Federal 
     agency using leasing authority delegated under the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     471 et seq.).''.

[[Page 29160]]

       (b) Definitions.--Section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 (40 U.S.C. 612) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Central business area.--The term `central business 
     area' means--
       ``(A) the centralized business area of a community, as 
     determined by local officials; and
       ``(B) any area adjacent and similar in character to a 
     centralized business area of a community, including any 
     specific area that may be determined by local officials to be 
     such an adjacent and similar area.
       ``(9) Federal facility.--The term `Federal facility' means 
     the site of a project to construct, alter, purchase, or 
     acquire (including lease) a public building, or to lease 
     office or any other type of space, under this Act or the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 471 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY OF PROCUREMENT COST ASSESSMENT METHODS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``central 
     business area'' and ``Federal facility'' have the meanings 
     given the terms in section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 (40 U.S.C. 612).
       (b) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall conduct a study and report to Congress on the 
     feasibility of establishing a system for--
       (1) assessing and giving equal consideration to the 
     absolute and adjusted comparable costs (as determined under 
     paragraph (2)) of--
       (A) locating Federal facilities in rural areas as compared 
     to locating Federal facilities in urban areas;
       (B) locating Federal facilities in central business areas 
     of rural areas as compared to locating Federal facilities in 
     rural areas outside central business areas; and
       (C) locating Federal facilities in central business areas 
     of urban areas as compared to locating Federal facilities in 
     urban areas outside central business areas;
       (2) for the purposes of paragraph (1), adjusting the 
     absolute comparable costs referred to in that paragraph to 
     correct for the inherent differences in property values 
     between rural areas and urban areas; and
       (3) assessing and giving consideration to the impacts on 
     land use, air quality and other environmental factors, and to 
     historic preservation, in the location of Federal facilities.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available under any other law, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
                                  ____


               Summary of the Downtown Equity Act of 1999

       The ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999'' clarifies a multitude 
     of Federal laws and regulations governing the location of 
     Federal office space and other facilities by requiring that 
     first priority be given to central business areas. Currently, 
     the location of federal offices and other facilities is 
     governed by several different laws and executive orders, 
     which often creates confusion and conflict. For instance, 
     current law gives a strong preference to locating Federal 
     facilities in rural areas, while an Executive Order (No. 
     12072) promotes the location of Federal facilities in central 
     business areas. These conflicting policies can have serious 
     adverse consequences to communities, such as promoting sprawl 
     and contributing to the decline of downtown areas.
       The ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999'' seeks to eliminate this 
     confusion by establishing a clear, statutory preference for 
     locating Federal facilities in central business areas, both 
     in rural and urban areas. Thus, Federal facilities will help 
     strengthen the economic base of cities, towns and rural 
     communities and make them more attractive places to live and 
     work. Locating Federal facilities in downtown areas will also 
     support historic development patterns, limit sprawl, and have 
     other important environmental benefits.
       The bill also requires the General Services Administration 
     (GSA) to study the feasibility of establishing a procurement 
     assessment system which considers both the absolute and 
     adjusted costs of locating Federal facilities between central 
     business areas and outside those areas.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1. Title.
       Section 2. Finding and Purposes
       Section 3. Amends the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 USC 
     601 et seq.) to add a new section establishing a preference 
     for locating Federal facilities in central business areas in 
     both rural and urban areas. This preference could be waived 
     if locating a facility in such area would either materially 
     compromise the mission of the agency or would not be 
     economically prudent. GSA is required to adopt rules to 
     implement this provision and also to report annually to the 
     Congress on the location of Federal agencies under this 
     section. This section also defines ``central business area'' 
     as the centralized business area determined by local 
     officials.
       Section 4. This section requires that within two years, the 
     GSA conduct a study and report to Congress on the feasibility 
     of establishing a system for comparing the absolute and 
     adjusted costs of locating Federal facilities in rural areas 
     as compared to urban areas and in central business areas as 
     compared to outside central business areas. The bill 
     authorizes a total of $400,000 for the study.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Vermont, Senator Leahy in introducing the Downtown Equity Act of 
1999. This bill will make the federal government a better partner with 
local officials when it comes to locating federal offices in a 
community. It will establish in statute a clear preference for federal 
offices to be located in the central business areas of a community. Why 
is this important?
  We all know the many problems facing community leaders as they chart 
the future course of their cities and towns. They must balance 
development patterns, employment, historic preservation, city services, 
transportation, and many other factors to arrive at a plan that makes 
the most sense for them.
  In many cases, the Federal government is a major source of employment 
and economic activity in these communities. That is particularly true 
in smaller cities and towns, where federal employees can make up a 
larger percentage of the employment base than in our large metropolitan 
areas.
  But too often, local officials find themselves battling with federal 
agencies over where to locate, or relocate, Federal facilities. The 
desires of agencies to locate on the outskirts of a small town can 
conflict with the needs of the community to preserve a vital business 
center downtown.
  I have seen firsthand some of these location battles in Montana. 
Communities such as Helena, Billings and Glasgow, have seen agencies 
threaten to move out of the downtown area, removing a linchpin of 
economic development that supports other local businesses. In another 
case, this time in Butte, an agency looked to abandon an historic 
building downtown in favor of a new site closer to the Interstate.
  The impact on these communities from such actions can be devastating. 
In Helena, for example, the relocation of the federal building would 
have removed over 400 Federal workers from the area and dealt a major 
blow to plans to revive the downtown core, known as Last Chance Gulch. 
And in Glasgow, a small town even by Montana standards, the relocation 
from the central business area to a new site on the outskirts of town 
threatened the survival of other businesses downtown and contributed to 
sprawl. Yes, even in the Big Sky state, sprawl is a threat to the 
vitality of our communities and the beauty of our environment.
  Many of these conflicts between communities and Federal agencies 
stems from the confusing, and sometimes conflicting, jumble of laws, 
executive orders, and regulations. It almost seems as if there is a 
provision to justify almost anything an agency wants to do. One law 
tells agencies to locate in rural areas. An executive order tells 
agencies to give priority to central business areas. No wonder agencies 
are confused and community leaders are angry.
  Mr. President, that's not right. We should have a clear, simple to 
understand policy when it comes to location of Federal facilities. 
Furthermore, that policy should make it easier for the Federal 
government to help community leaders who seek to maintain the vitality 
of their downtown areas. And that is what our bill does.
  First, as a matter of policy, it states that locating federal 
facilities in central business areas is good for the economy and the 
livability of communities.
  But more importantly, the bill implements that policy by requiring 
that the head of each Federal agency give first priority to central 
business areas when locating, or relocating, Federal facilities. This 
requirement could be waived if it would materially compromise the 
mission of the agency or if it would not be economically prudent. But 
those would be exceptions to the general rule that downtown areas 
should be the preferred area for Federal offices. And the downtown 
areas will be determined by local officials, not Federal agencies.
  This bill will be good for our communities. And it will be good for 
the Federal government.

[[Page 29161]]

  In closing let me express my appreciation to my colleague from 
Vermont for all the work that he has put into this issue. His 
leadership has been instrumental in crafting this bill. I look forward 
to working with him to bring this bill through the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and before the Senate early next year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1897. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
an Office of Autoimmune Disease at the National Institutes of Health, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


           the nih office of autoimmune diseases act of 1999

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the NIH 
Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999. This legislation, which is 
very similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Congressman Waxman, would create an Office of Autoimmune Diseases as 
part of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of 
Health. I would like to outline briefly why I feel that this office and 
this legislation are needed.
  To understand autoimmune diseases, it is first necessary to talk 
about the body's immune system. The immune system is a collection of 
tissues which is designed to fend off any foreign invaders into our 
body. For example, we live in a world surrounded by microbes of various 
kinds, many of which would be harmful to us if they could set up shop 
in our bodies. However, the immune system recognizes that a foreign 
microbe has entered our body and it mobilizes a variety of defenses to 
expel this foreign invader.
  The critical importance of the immune system can be easily seen when 
something goes wrong with it. For example, when a baby is born with a 
major defect in its immune system, it is extremely vulnerable to 
attacks by bacteria that a healthy baby would be able to fight off. 
Such immune-deficient babies need to be protected from their 
environment in order to preserve their lives. You may have seen the TV 
programs about such ``bubble babies'', who have to spend their entire 
lives in a protective plastic bubble or a spacesuit.
  However, although the immune system is essential for human life, it 
sometimes can cause problems with our health. When someone gets a 
kidney transplant, for example, it is the immune system which tries to 
fight off this ``foreign invader'', a process called rejection. The 
survival of the transplant requires that the recipient be given 
treatment in order to suppress the immune system.
  Occasionally, the body's immune system goes haywire and starts to 
attack the body's own tissues as if they were foreign invaders. This 
process is called autoimmunity, and diseases in which autoimmunity is 
thought to play an important role are called autoimmune diseases. The 
spectrum of human illnesses for which there is evidence of an 
autoimmune component is extremely broad, ranging from lupus to diabetes 
to multiple sclerosis. At the National Institutes of Health, these 
different diseases are often studied in completely different 
institutes: diabetes in the National Institute of Diabetes and 
Digestive and Kidney Diseases; lupus in the National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases; multiple sclerosis in the National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and so forth.
  Despite being studied in different locations, these diseases all have 
one thing in common: abnormalities of the immune system that lead to an 
autoimmune process in which the body actually attacks itself. It is 
vital that researchers on one autoimmune disease understand what 
research advances are being made on other autoimmune diseases; the key 
to understanding the autoimmune process in multiple sclerosis might 
very well be uncovered by a researcher working on autoimmunity in 
diabetes.
  This is where the need for an NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases 
arises. Its purpose is to make sure that there is cooperation and 
coordination across scientific disciplines for all those working on the 
broad spectrum of autoimmune diseases. Researchers working on 
autoimmunity in one narrowly defined disease must be able to benefit 
from research advances in autoimmune research. The history of medicine 
is replete with examples where breakthroughs in one area were actually 
a direct consequence of advances in a completely unrelated field.
  This bill sets up an Office of Autoimmune Diseases at NIH, along with 
a broadly representative coordinating committee to assist it. The 
director of the Office of Autoimmune Diseases will be responsible for 
setting an agenda for research and education on autoimmune diseases, 
for promoting cooperation and coordination among the disparate entities 
that are working on autoimmune diseases, for serving as principal 
advisor to HHS on autoimmune diseases, for husbanding resources for 
autoimmune disease research, and for producing reports to keep other 
scientists and the public informed about progress in autoimmune disease 
research.
  Mr. President, I'd like to explain why I have a particular interest 
in the area of autoimmune diseases. A very close friend of mine in 
Delaware, Ms. Tia McDowell, is fighting valiantly against a chronic 
disease. At present, the treatments for this disease no longer seem to 
be working very well, so Tia's hope lies in new research advances. 
Although doctors are not sure what causes Tia's disease, they do think 
that autoimmunity plays an important part. For Tia, and for others with 
diseases where autoimmunity is important, I want to make sure that we 
are moving ahead with research in the most efficient manner possible, 
and I think that creation of an NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases is 
one way to help this process along.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the NIH Office of 
Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999 as something we in Congress can do to 
help our research scientists conquer this puzzling and pernicious group 
of diseases. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1897

       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 ``NIH Office of Autoimmune 
     Diseases Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES AT 
                   NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

       Title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 404D the 
     following section:


                         ``autoimmune diseases

       ``Sec. 404E. (a) Establishment.--There is established 
     within the Office of the Director of NIH an office to be 
     known as the Office of Autoimmune Diseases (in this section 
     referred to as the `Office'), which shall be headed by a 
     Director appointed by the Director of NIH.
       ``(b) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Office, in 
     consultation with the coordinating committee established 
     under subsection (c), shall carry out the following:
       ``(A) The Director shall recommend an agenda for conducting 
     and supporting research on autoimmune diseases through the 
     national research institutes. The agenda shall provide for a 
     broad range of research and education activities relating to 
     biomedical, psychosocial, and rehabilitative issues, 
     including studies of the disproportionate impact of such 
     diseases on women.
       ``(B) The Director shall with respect to autoimmune 
     diseases promote coordination and cooperation among the 
     national research institutes and entities whose research is 
     supported by such institutes.
       ``(C) The Director shall promote the appropriate allocation 
     of the resources of the National Institutes of Health for 
     conducting and supporting research on autoimmune diseases.
       ``(D) The Director shall annually prepare a report that 
     describes the research and education activities on autoimmune 
     diseases being conducted or supported through the national 
     research institutes, and that identifies particular projects 
     or types of projects that should in the future be conducted 
     or supported by the national research institutes or other 
     entities in the field of research on autoimmune diseases.
       ``(2) Principal advisor regarding autoimmune diseases.--
     With respect to autoimmune diseases, the Director of the 
     Office shall serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary, 
     the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Director of NIH, 
     and shall

[[Page 29162]]

     provide advice to the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 
     and other relevant agencies.
       ``(c) Coordinating Committee.--The Director of NIH shall 
     ensure that there is in operation a committee to assist the 
     Director of the Office in carrying out subsection (b), that 
     the committee is designated as the Autoimmune Diseases 
     Coordinating Committee, and that, to the extent possible, 
     such Coordinating Committee includes liaison members from 
     other Federal health agencies, including the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the 
     Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the 
     effectiveness of the Office in promoting advancements in 
     research, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention related to 
     autoimmune diseases.
       ``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `autoimmune diseases' includes diseases or disorders in which 
     autoimmunity is thought to play a significant pathogenetic 
     role, as determined by the Secretary..
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $950,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 and 
     2002.''.

                          ____________________