[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 29701-29733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1921. A bill to authorize the placement within the site of the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial of a plaque to honor Vietnam veterans who 
died after their service in the Vietnam war, but as a direct result of 
that service; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              THE VIETNAM VETERANS RECOGNITION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which 
would create a plaque honoring those Vietnam veterans who died as a 
result of the war but who are not eligible to have their names placed 
on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The ``Vietnam Veterans Recognition 
Act of 1999'' would authorize the placement of a plaque within the 
sight of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to honor those Vietnam veterans 
who died after their service in the Vietnam War, but as a direct result 
of that service. This bill is similar to H.R. 3293, which was 
introduced by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman 
Gallegly.
  Deadly war wounds do not always kill right away. Sometimes these 
fatal war wounds may linger on for many years after the fighting is 
done. Sometimes these wounds are clearly evident from the time they are 
inflicted, sometimes they are not. The terrible toll that Agent Orange 
has taken on our Vietnam veterans stands as one stark example. What we 
do know is that all too often these war wounds eventually take the 
lives of many of our brave Vietnam veterans.
  Even though these veterans may not have been killed in action while 
they served in the tropical jungles of Vietnam, in the end they too 
made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Like their brothers and 
sisters who died on the field of battle, they too deserve to be duly 
recognized and honored.
  Mr. President, duly honoring the men and women who made the ultimate 
sacrifice for our country should always be a priority. Unfortunately, 
the service and sacrifices made by some Vietnam veterans is still not 
being fully recognized since their names are not included on the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.
  This bill recognizes the sacrifices made by these Vietnam veterans by 
authorizing a plaque that will be engraved with an appropriate 
inscription honoring these fallen veterans.
  Since no federal funds will be used for the plaque, it will be up to 
our nation's leading veteran's organizations and individual Americans 
to demonstrate their commitment to honoring these fallen veterans 
through charitable giving to help make it a reality. The American 
Battle Monument Commission will lead the effort in collecting the 
private funds necessary.
  It is vital for us to have a place to honor all the men and women who 
have served and died for their country. It is also important for the 
families of these fallen heroes to have a place in our nation's capital 
where their loved one's sacrifice is honored and recognized for future 
generations.

[[Page 29702]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. 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. 1921

       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 ``Vietnam Veterans Recognition 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITION OF A COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE ON THE SITE OF THE 
                   VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.

       Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note), which authorized 
     the establishment of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 5. PLAQUE TO HONOR OTHER VIETNAM VETERANS WHO DIED AS 
                   A RESULT OF SERVICE IN THE VIETNAM WAR.

       ``(a) Plaque Authorized.--The American Battle Monuments 
     Commission is authorized to place within the Vietnam Veterans 
     Memorial a suitable plaque containing an inscription intended 
     to honor Vietnam veterans--
       ``(1) who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but 
     as a direct result of that service; and
       ``(2) whose names are not otherwise eligible for placement 
     on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall.
       ``(b) Specifications.--The plaque shall be at least 6 
     square feet in size and not larger than 18 square feet in 
     size, and of whatever shape as the American American Battle 
     Monuments Commission determines to be appropriate for the 
     site. The plaque shall bear an inscription prepared by the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission.
       ``(c) Relation to Commemorative Works Act.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (a), the Commemorative Works Act (40 
     U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall apply to the design and placement 
     of the plaque within the site of the Vietnam Veterans 
     Memorial.
       ``(d) Consultation.--In designing the plaque, preparing the 
     inscription, and selecting the specific location for the 
     plaque within the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the American 
     Battle Monuments Commission shall consult with the architects 
     of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc.
       ``(e) Funds for Plaque.--Federal funds may not be used to 
     design, procure, or install the plaque.
       ``(f) Vietnam Veterans Memorial Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `Vietnam Veterans Memorial' means the structures and 
     adjacent areas extending to and bounded by the south curb of 
     Constitution Avenue on the north, the east curb of Henry 
     Bacon Drive on the west, the north side of the north 
     Reflecting Pool walkway on the south and a line drawn 
     perpendicular to Constitution Avenue 200 feet from the east 
     tip of the memorial wall on the east (this is also a line 
     extended from the east side of the western concrete border of 
     the steps to the west of the center steps to the Federal 
     Reserve Building extending to the Reflecting pool walkway). 
     This is the same definition used by the National Park Service 
     as of the date of the enactment of this section, as contained 
     in section 7.96(g)(1)(x) of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1922. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax credit for modifications to intercity buses required under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; to the Committee on Finance.


  tax credit for modifications to intercity buses required under the 
                    americans with disabilities act

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to give privately owned, over-the-road bus operators, the assistance 
they need to equip their buses with wheelchair lifts. These operators 
provide vital intercity bus services to millions of Americans who have 
access to no other form of public transportation, most particularly in 
rural areas. The legislation I am introducing today passed the Senate 
earlier this year as part of a larger tax bill and enjoyed bipartisan 
support. Indeed I am delighted that Senator Grassley has agreed to join 
me as a cosponsor of this bill.
  In keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department 
of Transportation (DOT) is requiring that a wheelchair lift be 
installed on every new over-the-road bus operating intercity bus 
service. In addition, comparable requirements are being imposed on over 
the road buses providing charter service. This largely unfunded mandate 
is estimated to cost the industry $25 million a year in acquisition and 
training costs alone. In some years, that $25 million figure is 
expected to exceed the entire profit for the industry.
  DOT's new requirement serves the important public purpose of ensuring 
that disabled persons in wheelchairs will have access to over-the-road 
buses. Yet the cost of this requirement poses a significant threat to 
the continuation of this service for millions of rural and low-income 
Americans. Over-the-road buses serve roughly 4,000 communities that 
have no other form of intercity public transportation. Additionally, 
with an average fare of $34, they are the only form of affordable 
transportation available for millions of passengers.
  The legislation we are introducing today provides over-the-road bus 
operators with a 50-percent tax credit for the unsubsidized costs of 
complying with the DOT requirement. This tax credit gives them the 
support that they need to ensure both that disabled people in 
wheelchairs have access to over-the-road bus service and that that 
service remains available to the millions of passengers who rely on 
that service.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK.
  S. 1923. A bill to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission 
from applying spectrum aggregation limits to spectrum assigned by 
auction after 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


               the third-generation wireless internet act

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Third-
Generation Wireless Internet Act of 1999, a bill to prevent the FCC 
from applying the current spectrum cap imposed upon commercial mobile 
wireless services to new spectrum auctions.
  Mr. President, the popularity of wireless services has far exceeded 
expectations. More people purchase wireless phones every month, and the 
duration of calls is growing rapidly as per-minute rates decline.
  Mr. President, while the popularity of wireless has increased, the 
Internet has become a mass-market phenomenon. Flat-rate Internet-usage 
plans have lured millions of Americans online. Broadband services have 
increased the Internet applications available to consumers and 
drastically reduced the amount of time necessary to access information 
online.
  Now, we are witnessing the marriage of the wireless and Internet 
crazes. Wireless Internet access presents consumers with the 
opportunity to access the Internet anywhere and anytime.
  With wireless access, consumers will no longer be dependent upon 
personal computers to reach the Internet. However, wireless Internet 
access will only become a mass-market phenomenon when consumers can 
obtain wireless broadband services that provide the bandwidth necessary 
to download information from the Internet on a hand-held device at 
reasonable speeds.
  Third-generation wireless services represent the first wave of truly 
broadband mobile services. Third-generation services should enable 
wireless users to achieve speeds of up to 384 kilobits per second. But, 
Mr. President, to ensure the rapid deployment of third-generation 
services, Congress needs to provide wireless carriers with the ability 
to purchase additional spectrum at future FCC auctions, which many 
carriers cannot do under the current FCC policy.
  Manufacturers are hesitant to produce equipment for third-generation 
applications, and wireless carriers are unable to roll out third-
generation services, because wireless carriers do not have enough 
spectrum to offer true third-generation services. Consumers have an 
opportunity to have wireless high-speed access to the Internet. But 
until there is regulatory certainty that carriers will be able to 
obtain the spectrum necessary to offer third-generation services, 
consumers will have to wait before they can have a mobile on-ramp to 
the information superhighway.
  Mr. President, 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:

[[Page 29703]]



                                S. 1923

       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 ``Third-Generation Wireless 
     Internet Act.''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Mobile telephony has been one of the fastest growing 
     industries of the telecommunications sector, offering 
     consumers innovative services at affordable rates.
       (2) Demand for mobile telecommunications services has 
     greatly exceeded industry expectations.
       (3) Mobile carriers are poised to bring high-speed Internet 
     access to consumers through wireless telecommunications 
     devices.
       (4) Third Generation mobile systems (hereinafter referred 
     to as ``3G'') are capable of delivering high-speed data 
     services for Internet access and other multimedia 
     applications.
       (5) Advanced wireless services such as 3G may be the most 
     efficient and economic way to provide high-speed Internet 
     access to rural areas of the United States.
       (6) Under the current Federal Communications Commission 
     rules, commercial mobile service providers may not use more 
     than 45 megahertz of combined cellular, broadband Personal 
     Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio spectrum 
     within any geographic area.
       (7) Assignments of additional spectrum may be needed to 
     enable mobile operators to keep pace with the demand for 3G 
     services.
       (8) The application of the current Commission spectrum cap 
     rules to new spectrum auctioned by the FCC would greatly 
     impede the deployment of 3G services.

     SEC. 3. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

       Section 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     332(c)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(9) Non-Application of spectrum aggregation limits to new 
     auctions.--
       ``(A) The Commission may not apply section 20.6(a) of its 
     regulations (47 C.F.R. 20.6(a)) to a license for spectrum 
     assigned by initial auction held for after December 31, 1999.
       ``(B) The Commission may relax or eliminate the spectrum 
     aggregation limits of section 20.6 of its regulations (47 
     C.F.R. 20.6), but may not lower these limits.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 1924. A bill to ensure personal privacy with respect to financial 
information, to provide customers notice and choice about how their 
financial institutions share or sell their personally identifiable 
sensitive financial information, to provide for strong enforcement of 
these rights, and to protect States' rights; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           the financial information privacy and security act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Financial 
Information Privacy and Security Act of 1999. I am pleased that 
Senators Bryan, Harkin, Durbin, and Feingold are original cosponsors of 
this legislation to protect the financial privacy of all Americans.
  The right of privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by 
the Constitution of the United States. But today, the American people 
are growing more and more concerned over encroachments on their 
personal privacy.
  New technologies, new communications media, and new business services 
created with the best of intentions and highest of expectations also 
pose a threat to our ability to keep our lives to ourselves, and to 
live, work and think without having personal information about us 
collected without our knowledge or consent.
  This incremental invasion of our privacy has happened through the 
lack of safeguards on personal, financial and medical information, 
which can be stolen, sold or mishandled and find its way into the wrong 
hands with the push of a button or click of a mouse.
  Our right of privacy has become one of the most vulnerable rights in 
the information age. The digitalization of information and the 
explosion in the growth of computing and electronic networking offer 
tremendous potential benefits to the way Americans live, work, conduct 
commerce, and interact with their government.
  It makes it possible for me, sitting in my farmhouse in Vermont, to 
connect with any Member of Congress or friends around the world, to get 
information with the click of a mouse on my computer.
  But the new technology also presents new threats to our individual 
privacy and security, in particular, our ability to control the terms 
under which our personal information is acquired, disclosed, and used.
  Just last week, President Clinton signed into law the landmark 
Financial Modernization Act of 1999, which updates our financial laws 
and opens up the financial services industry to become more 
competitive, both at home and abroad. I supported this legislation 
because I believe it will benefit businesses and consumers. It will 
make it easier for banking, securities, and insurance firms to 
consolidate their services, cut expenses and offer more products at a 
lower cost to all. But it also raises new concerns about our financial 
privacy.
  New conglomerates in the financial services industry may now offer a 
widening variety of services, each of which may require a customer to 
provide financial, medical or other personal information. Nothing in 
the new law prevents these new subsidiaries or affiliates of financial 
conglomerates from sharing this information for uses beyond those the 
customer thought he or she was providing it.
  For example, the new law has no requirement for the consumer to 
consent before these new financial subsidiaries or affiliates sell, 
share, or publish information on savings account balances, certificates 
of deposit maturity dates and balances, stock and mutual fund purchases 
and sales, life insurance payouts or health insurance claims.
  That is wrong. You shouldn't be able to have that information and go 
around to anybody who wants to use it to pitch you some new product or 
scare you into cashing in life savings or anything else.
  As President Clinton recently warned:

       Although consumers put a great value on privacy of their 
     financial records, our laws have not caught up to 
     technological developments that make it possible and 
     potentially profitable for companies to share financial data 
     in new ways. Consumers who undergo physical exams to obtain 
     insurance, for example, should not have to fear the 
     information will be used to lower their credit card limits or 
     deny them mortgages.

  I strongly agree. If we had this information in a desk drawer at 
home, nobody could come in and just take it. Instead, it is in the 
electronic desk drawer of one of the companies we have given it to, and 
they can share it with anybody they want within their organization.
  Mr. President, the Financial Information Privacy and Security Act of 
1999 offers this Congress the historic opportunity to provide 
fundamental privacy of every American's personal financial information. 
This bill would protect the privacy of this financial information by 
directing the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission jointly to 
promulgate rules requiring the financial institutions they regulate to: 
(1) inform their customers about what information may be disclosed, and 
under what circumstances, including when, to whom and for what 
purposes; (2) allow customers to review the information for accuracy; 
(3) establish safeguards to protect the confidentiality of personally 
identifiable customer information and records to prevent unauthorized 
disclosure; and (4) for new customers, obtain the customers' consent to 
disclosure, and for existing customers, give the customers a reasonable 
opportunity to object to disclosure. These financial institutions could 
use confidential customer information from other entities only if the 
entities provides their customers with similar privacy protections.
  In addition, this bill provides individuals the civil right of action 
to enforce their financial privacy rights and to recover punitive 
damages, reasonable attorneys fees, and other litigation costs. Privacy 
rights must be enforceable in a court of law to be truly effective.
  To be sure, this legislation would not affect any state law which 
provides greater financial privacy protections to its citizens. Some 
states have already recognized the growing need for financial privacy 
protections. For example, I am proud to say that Vermont

[[Page 29704]]

instituted cutting edge financial privacy laws five years ago. This 
bill is intended to provide the most basic rights of financial privacy 
to all American consumers. They deserve nothing less.
  When President Clinton signed the financial modernization bill last 
week, he directed the National Economic Council to work with the 
Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget to craft 
legislative proposals to forward to Congress next year to protect 
financial privacy in the new financial services marketplace. I believe 
the Financial Information Privacy and Security Act of 1999, which we 
are introducing today, should serve as the foundation for the 
Administration's financial privacy bill.
  Americans ought to be able to enjoy the exciting innovations of this 
burgeoning information era without losing control over the use of their 
financial information.
  The Financial Information Privacy and Security Act updates United 
States privacy laws to provide these fundamental protections of 
personal financial information in the evolving financial services 
industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  On privacy, in Vermont we care greatly about this. I have been in 
public life for a long time. During that time, I have only clipped and 
actually saved and framed a couple articles about me from the press.
  My distinguished friend from Nevada, who is on the floor, like me 
lives in a rural area--he in Searchlight, I in Middlesex, VT. I live on 
this dirt road. I look down this valley, 35 miles down a valley, 
mountains on either side. I literally cannot see another house from my 
front yard. It is a beautiful spot, this place my parents got when I 
was a teenager just for a summer home. Marcelle and I have made a year-
round place out of it. There is a neighboring farm family who, for 40 
years, have hayed the fields and done work around there. They have 
known me since I was a teenager. The article I cut from the papers was 
from one of our largest newspapers. It was a sidebar. Here is almost 
verbatim the way it went.
  The out-of-State reporter drives up to a farmer who is sitting on his 
porch along the dirt road. He says to the farmer, ``Does Senator Leahy 
live up this road?'' The farmer said, ``You a relative of his?'' He 
said, ``No, I am not.'' He says, ``You a friend of his?'' He said, 
``Not really.'' He says, ``Is he expecting you?'' The reporter says, 
``No.'' The farmer looks him right in the eye and says, ``Never heard 
of him.''
  Now, we Vermonters like our privacy. This was a Saturday, and the 
farmer wasn't about to tell somebody where I lived and direct him down 
the dirt road to it. It is a humorous story, but I kept that over the 
years because it reminds me of other ways to protect our privacy. By 
the same token, I would not want--whether it is that reporter or 
somebody I never met--to go onto a computer and find my bank 
statements, my medical records, my children's medical records, or my 
spouse's, and find out whether we have applied for a mortgage or not, 
or find out whether we have bought life insurance or cashed in life 
insurance. So I think we have to ask ourselves as we go into the new 
millennium, one where information will flow quicker and in more detail 
than could have even been conceived a generation ago--it could not have 
been conceived at the time my parents purchased that beautiful spot in 
Vermont. Ten years from now, we will move faster and with more 
complexity than we could even think of today.
  So I think the Congress, if it is going to fulfill its responsibility 
to the American people, has to do more and more to protect our privacy 
and allow technology to move as fast as it can, but not at the price of 
our individual privacy. We all know basically what we, our friends, 
neighbors, families, would want to give up of their personal privacy--
not very much. Think to yourself, if this was something you had in the 
top drawer of your desk at home, knowing nobody could get it, they 
would need search warrants or they would break the law by coming in and 
taking it. That is all the more reason why on somebody's computer they 
should not be allowed to take it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S. 1925. A bill to promote environmental restoration around the Lake 
Tahoe basin; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     the lake tahoe restoration act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in June, joined by Senators Reid, 
Boxer, and Bryan, I introduced the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (S. 1192) 
which would jump start the process of cleaning up Lake Tahoe.
  Lake Tahoe, one of the largest, deepest, clearest lakes in the world 
is in the midst of an economic crisis. Water clarity is declining at 
the rate of more than 1 foot each year; more than \1/3\ of the trees in 
the forest are either dead or dying; and sediment and algae-nourishing 
phosphorus and nitrogen continue to flow into the lake from a variety 
of sources.
  Over the last few months, I worked with the Congressmen from the 
Tahoe areas, Representative Doolittle and Representative Gibbons to 
craft a House version of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act that could 
garner bipartisan support. I am pleased that we've been able to build 
on S. 1192 and develop a compromise bill which I am introducing today.
  Like S. 1192, this bill first and foremost authorizes the necessary 
funding to clean up and restore Lake Tahoe. This bill includes two 
major changes:
  First, to address the problem of MTBE in the Lake Tahoe basin, I 
added a section that provides $1 million to the Tahoe Regional Planning 
Agency and local utility districts to clean up contaminated wells and 
surface water.
  Second, to help local governments who would otherwise be burdened by 
relocation costs that may be needed to clean up the basin, this bill 
promises that the federal government will pay \2/3\ of any needed 
relocation costs.
  I believe these provisions improve on the original bill and increase 
the breadth of support for this bill.
  The bill requires the Forest Service to develop an annual priority 
list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200 million 
dollars over 10 years to the forest service to implement these projects 
on federal lands. The list must include projects that will improve 
water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality, and fish 
and wildlife habitat around the lake.
  In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest 
Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects 
that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have 
targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with 
local community leaders.
  The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its 
priority list to five key activities: acquisition of environmentally 
sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire 
risk reduction, cleaning up MTBE contamination, and traffic and parking 
management, including promotion of public transportation.
  The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that an additional $100 
million be authorized over 10 years be as payments to local governments 
for erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments 
will help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion 
mitigation projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, 
and plant native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris.
  I spent my childhood at Lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for a 
number of years until I returned for the 1997 Presidential summit with 
President Clinton. I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe.
  I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water and learned that 30 
percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by 
MTBE. I observed gasoline spread over the water surface. I noticed that 
a third of the magnificent forest that surrounds the lake was dead or 
dying. I saw major land erosion problems that were bringing all kinds 
of sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut the lake's 
clarity by thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I

[[Page 29705]]

learned that the experts believe that in 10 years the clouding of the 
amazing crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in 30 
years it would be lost forever.
  The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that it will cost $900 
million over the next 10 years to restore the Lake.
  For me, that was a call to action and prompted me to sponsor this 
bill which will authorize $300 million of Federal moneys on a matching 
basis over 10 years for environmental restoration projects at Lake 
Tahoe to preserve the region's water quality and forest health. Put 
simply, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact that the 
federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes the 
responsibility all so clear.
  Through funding over the past few years we have already begun to make 
some early strides such as the purchase of important pieces of land 
like the Sunset Ranch and the planning for a Coordinated Transit 
System.
  Already, California and Nevada have begun contributing their portion 
of the restoration efforts.
  California is in the second year of a ten year $275 million 
commitment through the California Tahoe Conservancy, Caltrans, and the 
Parks Service.
  Nevada has authorized the issuance of bonds that will constitute an 
$82 million contribution over an 8-year period.
  Local governments and private industry have also agreed to commit 
$300 million. The Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a 
coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups, including Placer 
County, El Dorado County, the city of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County 
in Nevada, and Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an 
extraordinary commitment for a region with only 50,000 year-round 
residents.
  President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held 
an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over 2 
years for restoration activities around the lake. Unfortunately, the 
President's commitments lasted for only 2 years, so important areas 
like land acquisition and road decommissioning were not funded at the 
levels the President tried to accomplish. What is needed is a more 
sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet the federal 
government's $300 million responsibility to save the environment at 
Lake Tahoe.
  The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's 
commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new 
environmental restoration program at the lake.
  I am also grateful to the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality 
Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental 
groups, who has worked extremely hard on this bill.
  Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bipartisan 
support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin.
  The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have 
10 years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is 
irreversible.
  I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to consider the Lake 
Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Reid, 
Senator Boxer, Senator Bryan, Congressman Doolittle, Congressman 
Gibbons, Congresswoman Eshoo, and me in preserving this national 
treasure for generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 1926. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to improve student achievement by helping local educational 
agencies improve the quality of, and technology training for, teachers, 
to improve teacher accountability, and to enhance the leadership skills 
of principals; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


quality and accountability are best for children act (quality abcs act)

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill entitled 
the ``Quality and Accountability Are Best for Children Act.'' Every 
child in every classroom in America deserves to have a fully-qualified 
teacher; this legislation takes a comprehensive approach to helping 
communities make that a reality. The bill should be seen as 
complementary to the professional development sections of last year's 
Higher Education Act, and to the professional development sections of 
S. 7, the Public Schools Excellence Act. It should also be seen as part 
of a comprehensive strategy to forge a strong partnership on education 
between the Congress and the teachers, families, and students in 
communities across America which it serves.
  While my efforts today are to address educator quality issues, I also 
recently introduced S. 1773, the Youth and Adult School Partnership Act 
of 1999, and S. 1772, the Family and School Partnership Act of 1999. In 
addition, I have been working for some time to pass S. 1304, the Time 
for Schools Act. All these efforts work in concert, to address the very 
real needs of our local schools when it comes to investing in the 
strategies that work, and in making it possible to involve all the 
necessary members of our local school communities in the decisions that 
affect them.
  I have spoken before about what I have heard from the literally 
thousands of families and students and educators and community leaders 
I have met. I have spoken about how most Americans want an increased 
but appropriate federal role in education. They want decisions about 
how to help students achieve at higher levels to be made in the local 
school, but they also want increased federal funds--help where help is 
needed--to support their local efforts. Most people are shocked to 
learn that their federal government only devotes 1.6 percent of overall 
spending to education.
  I have spoken before about how the federal class size reduction 
initiative has at its core a streamlined funding mechanism that targets 
funds to a goal and then holds the school accountable to the local 
community for making progress toward that goal. I have talked about how 
important I feel this funding mechanism can be as a way for us to look 
at other federal programs in education. I have spoken about the 
importance of keeping the federal role firmly in mind: to ensure 
opportunity on the one hand, and to fund shared national priorities on 
the other. In addition, we must ensure accountability for results at 
every step along the way.
  We need to remember that what families and students and educators and 
community leaders have asked us for is targeted help and support, to 
fund such efforts as reducing class size, and providing for special 
education students, and after-school programs, and school 
modernization, and education technology, and school safety and other 
efforts. Our responsibility is to give them the help they have sought, 
and no topic is more important to them than funding the necessary steps 
it will take to help local schools improve the quality of their corps 
of educators. We must rethink how educators are taught, and how we 
support their learning of the new skills it takes to teach students the 
basics and ``new basics'' that it will take for them to succeed in 
today's complex world.
  In addition, we must fund local schools' efforts to recruit, retain 
and reward the world's finest corps of educators. And assure that their 
local communities can hold them accountable for doing so.
  Today I introduce the Quality and Accountability are Best for 
Children Act, or Quality ABCs Act. This bill will help school districts 
improve the quality of their educator corps, and help communities hold 
schools accountable for results. Since all communities are struggling 
to improve the quality of their teaching force, funds are provided at a 
level that allow all school districts to participate. It will authorize 
an additional formula grant, based on enrollment, in the amount of $2 
billion per year for teacher quality improvement, plus $100 million per 
year for principal professional development. Funds will supplement 
current federal, state, and local professional development efforts, and 
school districts are encouraged to use existing law, waivers, of Ed 
Flex authority to coordinate activities at the local level.

[[Page 29706]]

  With the goal of reducing paperwork and avoiding lengthy program 
descriptions, my legislation is based on the bipartisan mechanism 
agreed to under the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Class Size 
Reduction Initiative. Applications are streamlined, school districts 
can use money flexibly at the local level, as long as they target funds 
to improving educator quality in at least one of three subject areas 
(recruitment, retention, and rewards) and school districts are 
accountable to the local community in the form of a report card 
describing district efforts to improve teacher quality.
  School district are required to use funds to improve educator 
quality, but have a broad range of options to do so.
  To recruit new teachers, school districts may use tools such as the 
following:
  Establishing or expanding teacher academies, teachers-recruiting-
future-teacher programs, and programs to encourage high school and 
middle school students to pursue a career in teaching;
  Establishing or expanding para-professional training programs, 
paraeducator-to-teacher career ladders or other efforts to improve the 
training and supervision of para-educators;
  Establishing or expanding programs for mid-career professionals to 
become certificated teachers;
  Reaching out to communities of color or other special populations to 
make the teaching corps more reflective of current and future student 
demographics:
  Placing advertisements, attending college job fairs, offering signing 
bonuses, and other recruitment efforts;
  Embarking on and coordinating with other activities to help recruit 
the best quality teaching corps, such as: offering forgivable loans; 
assisting new hires to reach higher levels of state certification or to 
become national board certified teachers; recruiting new teachers in 
specific disciplines including math and science;
  In addition, the Secretary of Education will be authorized directly, 
or by creating programs at the state or local level to:
  Offer incentives for teachers to achieve national board 
certification;
  Create forgivable loan programs under the current student aid 
programs;
  Report on successful efforts and take part in dissemination 
activities;
  Provide technical assistance to states and school districts to assist 
them to use technology in recruitment, processing, hiring, and 
placement of qualified teaching candidates.
  To retain teachers, school districts may:
  Use funds to offer or stipends or bonuses to educators to seek 
further subject matter endorsements, advanced levels of state 
certification or national board certification. These retention efforts 
can also fund other local initiatives specifically designed, such as 
mentor teacher programs, to retain teachers in the first 5 years of 
teaching;
  Local education agencies can use funds, within district criteria for 
mentor or master teacher criteria, for a range of retention activities: 
mentor and/or master teacher job classification/career ladders; 
sabbatical/research activities such as the Fulbright program, or 
working in industry/non-profit world to improve teacher education; or 
other activities that keep teachers fresh while preserving their job 
slot/pay/benefits. These retention efforts can also fund other local 
initiatives specifically designed to retain experienced teachers, 
beyond the first five years of teaching;
  To reward teachers:
  School districts can reward elementary and secondary schools, based 
on improvement in the proportion of highly qualified teachers or other 
measures of teacher quality--improved recruiting, retention, improved 
``in endorsement'' ratio, higher percentage of certificated staff, 
higher levels of certification, professional development curricular 
improvement;
  School districts can provide teachers with a one-time bonus/reward of 
$5,000 for achieving national board certification;
  Each state will receive $100,000 to support the McAuliffe awards and 
National Teacher of the year awards to create additional forms of 
conferring respect and recognition upon distinguished educators.
  The bill requires school district report cards to contain information 
about efforts they have undertaken to improve the recruiting, 
retention, rewarding, and accountability for teachers. Reports include 
which programs were offered locally, how much of the funding was spent 
on which efforts, and what results were achieved in terms of measurable 
improvements to teacher quality and student achievement.
  Each report card shall include information about how parents and 
other community members can access processes under school district 
policies regarding teacher accountability.
  The bill includes an effort to provide, on a statewide basis, 
professional development services for public elementary school and 
secondary school principals designed to enhance the principals' 
educational leadership skills.
  The programs will provide principals with:
  Knowledge of effective instructional leadership skills and practices;
  Comprehensive whole-school approaches and programs that improve 
teaching and learning;
  Improved understanding of the effective uses of educational 
technology, including best practices for incorporating technology into 
the instructional program and management of the school;
  Increased knowledge of State content and performance standards, and 
appropriate related curriculum;
  Assistance in the development of effective programs, and strategies 
for assessing the effectiveness of such programs;
  Training in effective, fair evaluation and supervision of school 
staff, and training in improvement of instruction;
  Assistance in the enhancement and development of the principals' 
overall school management and business skills;
  Knowledge of school safety and discipline practices, school law, and 
school funding issues.
  The bill also includes the K-12 school sections of my teacher 
Technology Training Act. Last year, I included in the Higher Education 
Act provisions to improve pre-service teacher training offered by 
universities, by including technology in teacher training. The Quality 
ABCs Act will take the relevant steps to integrate technology into the 
professional development offered by school districts.
  This bill is only one step but it is a necessary one. We cannot 
succeed in improving student learning if we do not also invest in the 
quality of our educators. We must assure that schools can use all the 
tools at their disposal to do what's necessary, and the Quality ABCs 
Act funds the recruitment, retention, rewards and accountability 
measures essential to their success.
  In all these pieces of legislation, whether I am a sponsor or a 
cosponsor, my approach is to offer help where help is needed. Schools 
face increasing challenges and higher expectations from their 
communities and from all Americans.
  Now is not the time for easy answers. Too many have suggested that 
it's all about paperwork or all about trust or all about bureaucracy. 
We must take steps to squeeze the most out of every dollar, and make 
things more efficient, but, as we've seen with the funding mechanism 
under the class size reduction initiative, local flexibility, targeted 
to a specific purpose, with local accountability built in, can work 
very well.
  But even that approach is only a partial answer. Helping all our 
schools perform for all students now and into the next century is a 
monumental task. None of these challenges is easy. The kind of student 
success we are hoping for will not happen without an actual, working 
partnership among local schools and school districts, state and 
regional education agencies, and the federal government. The success 
will not happen without a partnership between educators and families 
and young people and community leaders.

[[Page 29707]]

  No person, school, or government entity has the resources, the 
research, the leadership, the experience, or the capability to go it 
alone. People cannot succeed in a global economy without an education 
that is world-class, relevant, and sufficiently funded. We all must 
work together as a nation if we want to succeed as a nation in a 
complex world. We owe this kind of perspective to our children and to 
our future. We must all strive to find the areas where we agree. Only a 
shared vision of the future of education will help us all to move 
toward our destination. Let us take that first step together.
  Mr. President, the drafting of these bills would have been impossible 
without the efforts of two legislative fe3llows in my office, Ann Mary 
Ifekwunigwe and Peter Hatch. I thank them for their work.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1926

       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 ``Quality and Accountability 
     are Best for Children Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Academically qualified, highly trained and professional 
     teachers are a critical component in children's educational 
     success.
       (2) The Department of Education has reported that our 
     Nation will need to hire 2,200,000 more teachers during the 
     10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2000.
       (3) Newspaper accounts from the 18th century described 
     teachers as well-respected, but ill-rewarded.
       (4) In 1999, because many individuals view teaching as a 
     thankless profession which garners little respect, little 
     support, and little money, nearly 50 percent of those who 
     enter teaching leave the profession within 5 years.
       (5) Sixty-three percent of parents and teachers believe 
     that accountability systems with financial rewards are a good 
     idea, and would motivate teachers to work harder to improve 
     student achievement.
       (6) Paying professional salaries is integral to teacher 
     retention. The State of Connecticut, for example, has been 
     able to improve student achievement, eliminate its teacher 
     shortage, and retain highly qualified teachers by offering 
     the highest salaries in the Nation (an average of $51,727 per 
     year).
       (7) Dissemination of information regarding the teacher 
     corps working at individual elementary schools and secondary 
     schools, and accountability procedures enforced by the local 
     educational agency can provide an important tool for parents 
     and taxpayers to measure the quality of the elementary 
     schools or secondary schools and to hold the schools and 
     teachers accountable for improving student performance.
       (8) Although elementary school and secondary school 
     teachers need the most up-to-date skills possible to ensure 
     that students are equipped to deal with a complex economy and 
     society, less than 50 percent of such teachers report that 
     they are competent in using technology effectively in the 
     classroom.
       (9) Although principals and other administrators are the 
     educational leaders and chief executive officers of our 
     Nation's elementary schools and secondary schools, and 
     research strongly suggests that strong leadership from the 
     principal is the single most important factor in effective 
     schools, research also has revealed that the characteristics 
     of a good principal are not necessarily those things for 
     which principals are trained and rewarded.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recruit the best and the brightest candidates to 
     teach in public elementary schools and secondary schools by 
     looking to young people, people from special populations, 
     mid-career professionals, and others as potential new 
     teachers;
       (2) to offer retention incentives to highly qualified 
     teachers to keep the teachers in the classroom;
       (3) to reward elementary schools and secondary schools 
     that, and teachers in such schools who, succeed in improving 
     student achievement;
       (4) to hold elementary school and secondary school teachers 
     accountable for achieving high levels of professionalism, 
     including possessing expert knowledge and skills in the 
     subject areas in which the teachers teach, being actively 
     involved in all aspects of the school community, and being 
     committed to the academic success of students, by providing 
     parents and the school community with specific information 
     about the qualifications of the local teaching corps;
       (5) to improve teacher professional development in the uses 
     of technology in teaching and learning and in the study of 
     technology, and to help local communities to use technology 
     as a vehicle to improve teacher professional development; and
       (6) to improve the professional development of elementary 
     school and secondary school principals and other 
     administrators to ensure that the principals and 
     administrators are the community's educational leaders, and 
     have sophisticated knowledge about student achievement, 
     school safety, management, evaluation, and community 
     outreach.

     SEC. 5. IMPROVING TEACHER RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, REWARDS, 
                   AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       Title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part E as part G;
       (2) by redesignating sections 2401 and 2402 (20 U.S.C. 
     6701, 6702) as sections 2601 and 2602, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after part D the following:

   ``PART E--IMPROVING TEACHER RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, REWARDS, AND 
                            ACCOUNTABILITY;

     ``SEC. 2401. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part:
       ``(1) Outlying Areas.--The term `outlying area' means the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

     ``SEC. 2402. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall award a 
     grant, from allotments under subsection (b), to each State to 
     enable the State to provide grants to local educational 
     agencies to carry out activities consistent with section 
     2404.
       ``(b) Reservations and allotments.--
       ``(1) Reservations.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 2406 to carry out this part for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve--
       ``(A) a total of 1 percent of such amount for payments to--
       ``(i) the Secretary of the Interior for activities, that 
     are approved by the Secretary and consistent with this part, 
     in schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs, on the basis of the schools' respective needs for 
     assistance under this part; and
       ``(ii) the outlying areas, to be allotted in accordance 
     with their respective needs for assistance under this part as 
     determined by the Secretary, for activities that are approved 
     by the Secretary and consistent with this part; and
       ``(B) 0.5 percent to enable the Secretary directly or 
     through programs with State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies--
       ``(i) to offer incentives to teachers to obtain 
     certification from the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards;
       ``(ii) to create student loan forgiveness programs;
       ``(iii) to report on and disseminate successful activities 
     assisted under this part; and
       ``(iv) to provide technical assistance to States and local 
     educational agencies to assist the States and agencies in 
     using technology in the recruitment, processing, hiring, and 
     placement of qualified teaching candidates.
       ``(2) Allotments to states.--From the amount appropriated 
     under section 2406 for any fiscal year that remains after 
     making the reservations under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall allot to each State an amount that bears the same 
     relationship to the remainder as the number of children, aged 
     5 to 17, enrolled in the public and private nonprofit 
     elementary schools and secondary schools in the State bears 
     to the number of such children enrolled in such schools in 
     all States.
       ``(c) Within-State Allocations.--Each State receiving an 
     allotment under subsection (b)(2)--
       ``(1) shall reserve $100,000 of the allotment for a fiscal 
     year--
       ``(A) to support the Christa McAuliffe awards, the National 
     Teacher of the Year awards, and other awards that confer 
     respect and recognition upon outstanding teachers; and
       ``(B) to establish other forms of conferring respect and 
     recognition upon distinguished teachers;
       ``(2) shall reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the 
     grant funds for a fiscal year, or $50,000, whichever is 
     greater, for the administrative costs of carrying out this 
     part; and
       ``(3) shall allocate the amount that remains after 
     reserving funds under paragraphs (1) and (2) among local 
     educational agencies in the State by allocating to each local 
     educational agency in the State submitting an application 
     that is consistent with section 2403 an amount that bears the 
     same relationship to the remainder as the number of children, 
     aged 5 to 17, enrolled in the public and private nonprofit 
     elementary schools and secondary schools served by the local 
     educational agency bears to the number of such children 
     enrolled in such schools

[[Page 29708]]

     served by all local educational agencies in the State.

     ``SEC. 2403. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

       Each local educational agency desiring assistance under 
     section 2402(c)(3) shall submit an application to the State 
     educational agency at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the State educational 
     agency may reasonably require. At a minimum, the application 
     shall contain a description of the programs to be assisted 
     under this part consistent with section 2404.

     ``SEC. 2404. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency receiving 
     funds under this part shall use the funds to carry out 
     activities described in subsections (b) and (c) that are 
     designed to improve student achievement by improving the 
     quality of the local teacher corps, including improving 
     recruitment and retention of highly qualified new teachers, 
     offering rewards to teachers based on teachers' successes, 
     and holding teachers accountable for the results attained by 
     the teachers by notifying the community in the school 
     district served by the local educational agency about the 
     local educational agency's efforts to improve teacher 
     quality.
       ``(b) Recruitment, Retention, and Rewards.--
       ``(1) Teacher recruitment.--A local educational agency may 
     support teacher recruitment activities by--
       ``(A) establishing or expanding teacher academies, 
     teachers-recruiting-future-teachers programs, and programs 
     designed to encourage secondary school students to pursue a 
     career in teaching;
       ``(B) establishing or expanding paraprofessional training 
     programs, paraprofessional-to-teacher career ladders, and 
     other programs designed to improve the training and 
     supervision of paraprofessionals;
       ``(C) establishing or expanding programs designed to assist 
     mid-career professionals to become certificated teachers;
       ``(D) reaching out to communities of color or other special 
     populations to make teachers teaching in the elementary 
     schools and secondary schools served by the local educational 
     agency more reflective of the student demographics (at the 
     time of the outreach and as anticipated in the future) in 
     such schools;
       ``(E) placing advertisements, attending college job fairs, 
     offering signing bonuses, or engaging in other efforts 
     designed to recruit highly qualified new teachers; and
       ``(F) establishing activities, and coordinating with 
     existing activities, designed to help recruit the highest 
     quality new teachers, such as--
       ``(i) offering student loan forgiveness;
       ``(ii) offering assistance for newly hired teachers to 
     reach higher levels of State certification or certification 
     from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; 
     and
       ``(iii) recruiting new teachers in specific disciplines, 
     including mathematics and science.
       ``(2) Teacher retention.--A local educational agency may 
     support teacher retention activities by--
       ``(A) offering stipends or bonuses to teachers who seek 
     further subject matter endorsements and advanced levels of 
     State certification or certification from the National Board 
     for Professional Teaching Standards;
       ``(B) establishing or expanding local initiatives, such as 
     mentor teacher programs, that are specifically designed to 
     retain teachers during the teachers' first 5 years of 
     teaching;
       ``(C) supporting other teacher retention activities that 
     are consistent with local educational agency criteria for 
     mentor teacher job classifications or master teacher job 
     classifications, including--
       ``(i) establishing such classifications;
       ``(ii) establishing career ladders for mentor teachers or 
     master teachers; and
       ``(iii) providing teachers with time outside the classroom 
     to improve the teachers' teaching skills while preserving the 
     teachers' job, pay, and benefits, including providing 
     sabbaticals, research opportunities, such as the Fulbright 
     Academic Exchange Programs, and the opportunity to work in an 
     industry or a not-for-profit organization; and
       ``(D) supporting local initiatives specifically designed to 
     retain experienced teachers beyond the teacher's first 5 
     years of teaching.
       ``(3) Rewards.--A local educational agency may reward--
       (A) elementary schools and secondary schools by providing 
     bonuses or financial awards to the schools, with priority 
     given to financially needy schools, based on--
       ``(i) the school's increased percentage of highly qualified 
     teachers teaching in the school; or
       ``(ii) other measures demonstrating an improvement in the 
     quality of teachers teaching in the school, including an 
     improvement in the school's recruitment and retention of 
     teachers, a reduction in out-of-field placement of teachers, 
     an increased percentage of certificated staff teaching in the 
     school, an increase in the number of teachers in the school 
     attaining higher levels of certification, and a school's 
     adoption of professional development programs that improve 
     curricula; and
       ``(B) highly qualified elementary school and secondary 
     school teachers by offering a 1-time bonus, reward, or 
     stipend of not more than $5,000 to teachers who are certified 
     by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
       ``(c) Accountability.--An elementary school or secondary 
     school receiving assistance under this part, and the local 
     educational agency serving that school, shall provide an 
     annual report to parents, the general public, and the State 
     educational agency, in easily understandable language, 
     containing--
       (1) information regarding--
       ``(A) the demographic makeup and professional credentials 
     of the agency's teacher corps;
       ``(B) efforts to increase student achievement by improving 
     the recruitment, retention, and rewarding of teachers, and 
     improving accountability for teachers; and
       ``(C) local programs assisted, expenditures made, and 
     results achieved under this part in terms of measurable 
     improvements in teacher quality and student achievement; and
       ``(2) notification of the community served by the local 
     educational agency with respect to local educational agency 
     policies regarding teacher accountability.

     ``SEC. 2405. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Supplement Not Supplant.--A local educational agency 
     shall use funds under this part to supplement, and not to 
     supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of funds 
     provided under this part, would otherwise be spent for 
     activities under this part.
       ``(b) Prohibition.--No local educational agency shall use 
     funds provided under this part to increase the salaries of or 
     to provide benefits to teachers, other than providing 
     professional development programs, bonuses, and enrichment 
     programs described in section 2404.
       ``(c) Professional Development.--If a local educational 
     agency uses funds made available under this part for 
     professional development activities, the local educational 
     agency shall ensure the equitable participation of private 
     nonprofit elementary schools and secondary schools in such 
     activities.
       ``(d) Coordination.--A local educational agency shall 
     coordinate any professional development activities carried 
     out under this part with activities carried out under title 
     II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, if the local 
     educational agency is participating in programs funded under 
     such title.
       ``(e) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency 
     receiving grant funds under this part may use not more than 3 
     percent of the grant funds for any fiscal year for the cost 
     of administering this part.
       ``(f) Report.--Each State receiving funds under this part 
     shall submit an annual report to the Secretary containing 
     information regarding activities assisted under this part.

     ``SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $2,100,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2001 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years.

             ``PART F--EXCELLENT PRINCIPALS CHALLENGE GRANT

     ``SEC. 2501. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY 
                   SCHOOL AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 2504, the Secretary shall award grants to State 
     educational agencies or consortia of State educational 
     agencies that submit applications consistent with subsection 
     (d), to enable such agencies or consortia to provide, on a 
     statewide basis, professional development services for 
     elementary school and secondary school principals designed to 
     enhance the principals' leadership skills.
       ``(b) Reservations and Awards.--
       ``(1) Reservations.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 2503 to carry out this part for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may reserve not more than 2 percent to develop 
     model national programs, in accordance with section 2502, 
     that provide activities described in subsection (e) for 
     elementary school and secondary school principals.
       ``(2) Awards to states.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 2504 for a fiscal year and remaining after the 
     Secretary makes the reservation under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall award grants, in an amount determined by the 
     Secretary, to State educational agencies and consortia of 
     State educational agencies on the basis of--
       ``(A) the quality of the proposed uses of the grant funds; 
     and
       ``(B) the educational needs of the State or States.
       ``(c) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount provided to a State 
     educational agency or consortia under subsection (b)(2) shall 
     not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the program described in 
     the application submitted pursuant to subsection (d).
       ``(2) Non-federal contributions.--The non-Federal share of 
     payments under this section may be in cash or in kind, fairly 
     evaluated, including planned equipment or services. Amounts 
     provided by the Federal Government, and any portion of any 
     service subsidized by the Federal Government, may not be 
     included in determining the amount of the non-Federal share.
       ``(3) Waiver.--The Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     to waive the matching requirement of paragraph (1) with 
     respect to

[[Page 29709]]

     State educational agencies or consortia of State educational 
     agencies that the Secretary determines serve low-income 
     areas.
       ``(d) Application required.--Each State educational agency 
     or consortia of State educational agencies desiring a grant 
     under subsection (b)(2) shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall reasonably require. At a 
     minimum, the application shall contain--
       ``(1) a description of the activities to be assisted under 
     this section consistent with subsection (e); and
       ``(2) an assurance that--
       ``(A) matching funds will be provided in accordance with 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(B) elementary school and secondary school principals in 
     the State were involved in developing the application and the 
     proposed uses of grant funds.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--A State educational agency or 
     consortia of State educational agencies receiving a grant 
     under this part shall use the grant funds to provide, on a 
     statewide basis, professional development services and 
     training to increase the instructional leadership and other 
     skills of principals in elementary schools and secondary 
     schools. Such activities may include activities--
       ``(1) to provide principals with knowledge of--
       ``(A) effective instructional leadership skills and 
     practices; and
       ``(B) comprehensive whole-school approaches and programs 
     that improve teaching and learning;
       ``(2) to provide training in effective, fair evaluation and 
     supervision of school staff, and to provide training in 
     improvement of instruction; and
       ``(3) to improve understanding of the effective uses of 
     educational technology, and to incorporate technology into 
     the instructional program and the operation and management of 
     the school;
       ``(4) to improve knowledge of State content and performance 
     standards and appropriate related curriculum;
       ``(5) to improve the development of effective programs, the 
     assessment of program effectiveness, and other related 
     programs;
       ``(6) to enhance and develop school management and business 
     skills;
       ``(7) to improve training in school safety and discipline;
       ``(8) to improve training in school finance, grant-writing 
     and fund-raising; and
       ``(9) to improve training regarding school legal 
     requirements.
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `State' means each of the several States of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico.

     ``SEC. 2502. MODEL NATIONAL PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amounts reserved under section 
     2501(b)(1), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Commission described in subsection (b), shall develop model 
     national programs to provide activities described in section 
     2501(e) for elementary school and secondary school 
     principals.
       ``(b) Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint a 
     Commission--
       ``(A) to examine existing professional development programs 
     for elementary school and secondary school principals; and
       ``(B) to provide, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Quality and Accountability are Best for 
     Children Act, a report regarding the best practices to help 
     elementary school and secondary school principals in multiple 
     education environments across our Nation.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of 
     representatives of local educational agencies, State 
     educational agencies, departments of education within 
     institutions of higher education, elementary school and 
     secondary school principals, education organizations, 
     community and business groups, and labor organizations.

     ``SEC. 2503. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Supplement Not Supplant.--A State educational agency 
     or consortium of State educational agencies shall use funds 
     under this part to supplement, and not to supplant, State and 
     local funds that, in the absence of funds provided under this 
     part, would otherwise be spent for activities under this 
     part.
       ``(b) Professional Development.--If a State educational 
     agency or consortium of State educational agencies uses funds 
     made available under this part for professional development 
     activities, the State educational agency or consortium of 
     State educational agencies shall ensure the equitable 
     participation of private nonprofit elementary schools and 
     secondary schools in such activities.

     ``SEC. 2504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; SUPPLEMENT NOT 
                   SUPPLANT.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated, $100,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to carry out this part.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS REGARDING IMPROVING TEACHER TECHNOLOGY 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Statement of Purpose for Title I.--Section 1001(d)(4) 
     (20 U.S.C. 6301(d)(4)) is amended by inserting ``, giving 
     particular attention to the role technology can play in 
     professional development and improved teaching and learning'' 
     before the semicolon.
       (b) School Improvement.--Section 1116(c)(3) (20 U.S.C. 
     6317(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In carrying out professional development under this 
     paragraph an elementary school or secondary school shall give 
     particular attention to professional development that 
     incorporates technology used to improve teaching and 
     learning.''.
       (c) Professional Development.--Section 1119(b) (20 U.S.C. 
     6320(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) include instruction in the use of technology.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (I) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (H), respectively.
       (d) Purposes for Title II.--Section 2002(2) (20 U.S.C. 
     6602(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) uses technology to enhance the teaching and learning 
     process.''.
       (e) National Teacher Training Project.--Section 2103(b)(2) 
     (20 U.S.C. 6623(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(J) Technology.''.
       (f) Local Plan for Improving Teaching and Learning.--
     Section 2208(d)(1)(F) (20 U.S.C. 6648(d)(1)(F)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, technologies,'' after ``strategies''.
       (g) Authorized Activities.--Section 2210(b)(2)(C) (20 
     U.S.C. 6650(b)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, and in 
     particular technology,'' after ``practices''.
       (h) Higher Education Activities.--Section 2211(a)(1)(C) (20 
     U.S.C. 6651(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, including 
     technological innovation,'' after ``innovation''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1929. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement 
Act to revise and extend such Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


  Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
reauthorize and extend the provisions of the Native Hawaiian Health 
Care Act. I am joined in the sponsorship of this measure by my esteemed 
colleague, Senator Daniel Akaka.
  Although the act was enacted into law in 1988, appropriations to 
implement these critically-needed health care programs and services 
were not forthcoming for several years. As a result, the Native 
Hawaiian Health care Systems are still struggling to address the 
overwhelming need for health care services that are designed to improve 
the health status of the native people of Hawaii.
  Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality rates in the State 
of Hawaii, as well as the highest years of productive life lost from 
cancer. Native Hawaiians also have the highest mortality rates in the 
State of Hawaii from diabetes mellitus--130 percent higher than the 
statewide rate for all other races. The death rate from heart disease 
is 66 percent higher amongst Native Hawaiians than for the entire State 
of Hawaii. The Native Hawaiian mortality rate associated with 
hypertension is 84 percent higher than that for the rest of the State. 
These are just a few of the health status indicators at which the 
health care programs and services authorized by the Native Hawaiian 
Health Care Improvement Act are targeted.
  Through the training of Native Hawaiian health care professionals, 
and the assignment of physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, 
and traditional healers to serve the needs of the Native Hawaiian 
community, we anticipate that the objectives established by the Surgeon 
General--the Healthy People 2010 goals--as well as kanaka maoli health 
objectives--will be attained. But to do so will require a sustained 
effort and a continuity of authorization and support for health care 
services provided to our most needy population.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 29710]]



                                S. 1929

       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 ``Native Hawaiian Health Care 
     Improvement Act Reauthorization of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE 
                   IMPROVEMENT ACT.

       The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11701 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act'.
       ``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Findings.
``Sec. 3. Definitions.
``Sec. 4. Declaration of policy.
``Sec. 5. Comprehensive health care master plan for Native Hawaiians.
``Sec. 6. Functions of Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 7. Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems.
``Sec. 8. Administrative grant for Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 9. Administration of grants and contracts.
``Sec. 10. Assignment of personnel.
``Sec. 11. Native Hawaiian health scholarships and fellowships.
``Sec. 12. Report.
``Sec. 13. Demonstration projects of national significance.
``Sec. 14. National Bipartisan Commission on Native Hawaiian Health 
              Care Entitlement.
``Sec. 15. Rule of construction.
``Sec. 16. Compliance with Budget Act.
``Sec. 17. Severability.

     ``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       ``(a) General Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       ``(1) Native Hawaiians begin their story with the Kumulipo 
     which details the creation and inter-relationship of all 
     things, including their evolvement as healthy and well 
     people.
       ``(2) Native Hawaiians are a distinct and unique indigenous 
     people with a historical continuity to the original 
     inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago and have a distinct 
     society organized almost 2,000 years ago.
       ``(3) Native Hawaiians have never directly relinquished to 
     the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty 
     as a people or over their national lands, either through 
     their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.
       ``(4) The health and well-being of Native Hawaiians are 
     intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to 
     their lands and seas.
       ``(5) The long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii 
     over the 19th and early 20th centuries have been devastating 
     to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
       ``(6) The Native Hawaiian people are determined to 
     preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their 
     ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in 
     accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, 
     customs, practices, language, and social institutions. In 
     referring to themselves, Native Hawaiians use the term 
     ``Kanaka Maoli'', a term frequently used in the 19th century 
     to describe the native people of Hawaii.
       ``(7) The constitution and statutes of the State of 
     Hawaii--
       ``(A) acknowledge the distinct land rights of Native 
     Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of the public lands trust; 
     and
       ``(B) reaffirm and protect the unique right of the Native 
     Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their cultural and 
     religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language.
       ``(8) At the time of the arrival of the first nonindigenous 
     people in Hawaii in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in 
     a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistence social 
     system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated 
     language, culture, and religion.
       ``(9) A unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian 
     Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first 
     King of Hawaii.
       ``(10) Throughout the 19th century and until 1893, the 
     United States--
       ``(A) recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation;
       ``(B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to 
     the Hawaiian Government; and
       ``(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the 
     Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 
     1842, 1849, 1875 and 1887.
       ``(11) In 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister 
     assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii, 
     conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the 
     Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to 
     overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawaii.
       ``(12) In pursuance of that conspiracy, the United States 
     Minister and the naval representative of the United States 
     caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the 
     sovereign Hawaiian Nation in support of the overthrow of the 
     indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii and the United 
     States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition of 
     a provisional government formed by the conspirators without 
     the consent of the native people of Hawaii or the lawful 
     Government of Hawaii in violation of treaties between the 2 
     nations and of international law.
       ``(13) In a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, then 
     President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on 
     these illegal actions, and acknowledged that by these acts, 
     described by the President as acts of war, the government of 
     a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown, and the 
     President concluded that a ``substantial wrong has thus been 
     done which a due regard for our national character as well as 
     the rights of the injured people required that we should 
     endeavor to repair''.
       ``(14) Queen Lili`uokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawaii, 
     and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the 
     aboriginal citizens of Hawaii, promptly petitioned the United 
     States for redress of these wrongs and for restoration of the 
     indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but this 
     petition was not acted upon.
       ``(15) Further, the United States has acknowledged the 
     significance of these events and has apologized to Native 
     Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for 
     the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii with the participation 
     of agents and citizens of the United States, and the 
     resulting deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to 
     self-determination in legislation in 1993 (Public Law 103-
     150; 107 Stat. 1510).
       ``(16) In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii through 
     the Newlands Resolution without the consent of or 
     compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their 
     sovereign government who were thereby denied the mechanism 
     for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-
     government and self- determination, their lands and ocean 
     resources.
       ``(17) Through the Newlands Resolution and the 1900 Organic 
     Act, the Congress received 1,750,000 acres of lands formerly 
     owned by the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and 
     exempted the lands from then existing public land laws of the 
     United States by mandating that the revenue and proceeds from 
     these lands be ``used solely for the benefit of the 
     inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and other 
     public purposes'', thereby establishing a special trust 
     relationship between the United States and the inhabitants of 
     Hawaii.
       ``(18) In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 which designated 200,000 acres of the 
     ceded public lands for exclusive homesteading by Native 
     Hawaiians, thereby affirming the trust relationship between 
     the United States and the Native Hawaiians, as expressed by 
     then Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane who was cited 
     in the Committee Report of the Committee on Territories of 
     the House of Representatives as stating, ``One thing that 
     impressed me . . . was the fact that the natives of the 
     islands . . . for whom in a sense we are trustees, are 
     falling off rapidly in numbers and many of them are in 
     poverty.''.
       ``(19) In 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique 
     status of the Native Hawaiian people by including in the Act 
     of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781 et seq.), a provision to lease 
     lands within the extension to Native Hawaiians and to permit 
     fishing in the area ``only by native Hawaiian residents of 
     said area or of adjacent villages and by visitors under their 
     guidance''.
       ``(20) Under the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved 
     March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States transferred 
     responsibility for the administration of the Hawaiian Home 
     Lands to the State of Hawaii but reaffirmed the trust 
     relationship which existed between the United States and the 
     Native Hawaiian people by retaining the exclusive power to 
     enforce the trust, including the power to approve land 
     exchanges, and legislative amendments affecting the rights of 
     beneficiaries under such Act.
       ``(21) Under the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved 
     March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States transferred 
     responsibility for administration over portions of the ceded 
     public lands trust not retained by the United States to the 
     State of Hawaii but reaffirmed the trust relationship which 
     existed between the United States and the Native Hawaiian 
     people by retaining the legal responsibility of the State for 
     the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under 
     section 5(f) of such Act.
       ``(22) The authority of the Congress under the Constitution 
     to legislate in matters affecting the aboriginal or 
     indigenous peoples of the United States includes the 
     authority to legislate in matters affecting the native 
     peoples of Alaska and Hawaii.
       ``(23) Further, the United States has recognized the 
     authority of the Native Hawaiian people to continue to work 
     towards an appropriate form of sovereignty as defined by the 
     Native Hawaiian people themselves in provisions set forth in 
     legislation returning the Hawaiian Island of Kaho`olawe to 
     custodial management by the State of Hawaii in 1994.
       ``(24) In furtherance of the trust responsibility for the 
     betterment of the conditions of

[[Page 29711]]

     Native Hawaiians, the United States has established a program 
     for the provision of comprehensive health promotion and 
     disease prevention services to maintain and improve the 
     health status of the Hawaiian people. This program is 
     conducted by the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems, the 
     Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program and Papa Ola 
     Lokahi. Health initiatives from these and other health 
     institutions and agencies using Federal assistance have begun 
     to lower the century-old morbidity and mortality rates of 
     Native Hawaiian people by providing comprehensive disease 
     prevention, health promotion activities and increasing the 
     number of Native Hawaiians in the health and allied health 
     professions. This has been accomplished through the Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-579) and its 
     reauthorization in section 9168 of Public Law 102-396 (106 
     Stat. 1948).
       ``(25) This historical and unique legal relationship has 
     been consistently recognized and affirmed by Congress through 
     the enactment of Federal laws which extend to the Native 
     Hawaiian people the same rights and privileges accorded to 
     American Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut 
     communities, including the Native American Programs Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.), the American Indian Religious 
     Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the National Museum of the 
     American Indian Act (20 U.S.C. 80q et seq.), and the Native 
     American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 
     3001 et seq.).
       ``(26) The United States has also recognized and reaffirmed 
     the trust relationship to the Native Hawaiian people through 
     legislation which authorizes the provision of services to 
     Native Hawaiians, specifically, the Older Americans Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1987, the 
     Veterans` Benefits and Services Act of 1988, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), the 
     Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-579), 
     the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1988, the 
     Nursing Shortage Reduction and Education Extension Act of 
     1988, the Handicapped Programs Technical Amendments Act of 
     1988, the Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988, and the 
     Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of 1990.
       ``(27) The United States has also affirmed the historical 
     and unique legal relationship to the Hawaiian people by 
     authorizing the provision of services to Native Hawaiians to 
     address problems of alcohol and drug abuse under the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570).
       ``(28) Further, the United States has recognized that 
     Native Hawaiians, as aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples 
     of Hawaii, are a unique population group in Hawaii and in the 
     continental United States and has so declared in Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular 15 in 1997 and Presidential 
     Executive Order No. 13125, dated June 7, 1999.
       ``(29) Despite the United States having expressed its 
     commitment to a policy of reconciliation with the Native 
     Hawaiian people for past grievances in Public Law 103-150 
     (107 Stat. 1510) the unmet health needs of the Native 
     Hawaiian people remain severe and their health status 
     continues to be far below that of the general population of 
     the United States.
       ``(b) Unmet Needs and Health Disparities.--Congress finds 
     that the unmet needs and serious health disparities that 
     adversely affect the Native Hawaiian people include the 
     following:
       ``(1) Chronic disease and illness.--
       ``(A) Cancer.--
       ``(i) In general.--With respect to all cancer--

       ``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality 
     rates in the State of Hawaii (231.0 out of every 100,000 
     residents), 45 percent higher than that for the total State 
     population (159.7 out of every 100,000 residents);
       ``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the highest cancer 
     mortality rates in the State of Hawaii for cancers of the 
     lung, liver and pancreas and for all cancers combined;
       ``(III) Native Hawaiian females ranked highest in the State 
     of Hawaii for cancers of the lung, liver, pancreas, breast, 
     cervix uteri, corpus uteri, stomach, and rectum, and for all 
     cancers combined;
       ``(IV) Native Hawaiian males have the highest years of 
     productive life lost from cancer in the State of Hawaii with 
     8.7 years compared to 6.4 years for other males; and
       ``(V) Native Hawaiian females have 8.2 years of productive 
     life lost from cancer in the State of Hawaii as compared to 
     6.4 years for other females in the State of Hawaii;

       ``(ii) Breast cancer.--With respect to breast cancer--

       ``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest mortality rates in 
     the State of Hawaii from breast cancer (37.96 out of every 
     100,000 residents), which is 25 percent higher than that for 
     Caucasian Americans (30.25 out of every 100,000 residents) 
     and 106 percent higher than that for Chinese Americans (18.39 
     out of every 100,000 residents); and
       ``(II) nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third highest 
     mortality rates due to breast cancer (25.0 out of every 
     100,000 residents) following African Americans (31.4 out of 
     every 100,000 residents) and Caucasian Americans (27.0 out of 
     every 100,000 residents).

       ``(iii) Cancer of the cervix.--Native Hawaiians have the 
     highest mortality rates from cancer of the cervix in the 
     State of Hawaii (3.82 out of every 100,000 residents) 
     followed by Filipino Americans (3.33 out of every 100,000 
     residents) and Caucasian Americans (2.61 out of every 100,000 
     residents).
       ``(iv) Lung cancer.--Native Hawaiians have the highest 
     mortality rates from lung cancer in the State of Hawaii 
     (90.70 out of every 100,000 residents), which is 61 percent 
     higher than Caucasian Americans, who rank second and 161 
     percent higher than Japanese Americans, who rank third.
       ``(v) Prostate cancer.--Native Hawaiian males have the 
     second highest mortality rates due to prostate cancer in the 
     State of Hawaii (25.86 out of every 100,000 residents) with 
     Caucasian Americans having the highest mortality rate from 
     prostate cancer (30.55 out of every 100,000 residents).
       ``(B) Diabetes.--With respect to diabetes, for the years 
     1989 through 1991--
       ``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate due 
     to diabetes mellitis (34.7 out of every 100,000 residents) in 
     the State of Hawaii which is 130 percent higher than the 
     statewide rate for all other races (15.1 out of every 100,000 
     residents);
       ``(ii) full-blood Hawaiians had a mortality rate of 93.3 
     out of every 100,000 residents, which is 518 percent higher 
     than the rate for the statewide population of all other 
     races; and
       ``(iii) Native Hawaiians who are less than full-blood had a 
     mortality rate of 27.1 out of every 100,000 residents, which 
     is 79 percent higher than the rate for the statewide 
     population of all other races.
       ``(C) Asthma.--With respect to asthma--
       ``(i) in 1990, Native Hawaiians comprised 44 percent of all 
     asthma cases in the State of Hawaii for those 18 years of age 
     and younger, and 35 percent of all asthma cases reported; and
       ``(ii) in 1992, the Native Hawaiian rate for asthma was 
     81.7 out of every 1000 residents, which was 73 percent higher 
     than the rate for the total statewide population of 47.3 out 
     of every 1000 residents.
       ``(D) Circulatory diseases.--
       ``(i) Heart Disease.--With respect to heart disease--

       ``(I) the death rate for Native Hawaiians from heart 
     disease (333.4 out of every 100,000 residents) is 66 percent 
     higher than for the entire State of Hawaii (201.1 out of 
     every 100,000 residents); and
       ``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the greatest years of 
     productive life lost in the State of Hawaii where Native 
     Hawaiian males lose an average of 15.5 years and Native 
     Hawaiian females lose an average of 8.2 years due to heart 
     disease, as compared to 7.5 years for all males in the State 
     of Hawaii and 6.4 years for all females.

       ``(ii) Hypertension.--The death rate for Native Hawaiians 
     from hypertension (3.5 out of every 100,000 residents) is 84 
     percent higher than that for the entire State (1.9 out of 
     every 100,000 residents).
       ``(iii) Stroke.--The death rate for Native Hawaiians from 
     stroke (58.3 out of every 100,000 residents) is 13 percent 
     higher than that for the entire State (51.8 out of every 
     100,000 residents).
       ``(2) Infectious disease and illness.--The incidence of 
     AIDS for Native Hawaiians is at least twice as high per 
     100,000 residents (10.5 percent) than that for any other non-
     Caucasian group in the State of Hawaii.
       ``(3) Accidents.--With respect to accidents--
       ``(A) the death rate for Native Hawaiians from accidents 
     (38.8 out of every 100,000 residents) is 45 percent higher 
     than that for the entire State (26.8 out of every 100,000 
     residents);
       ``(B) Native Hawaiian males lose an average of 14 years of 
     productive life lost from accidents as compared to 9.8 years 
     for all other males in Hawaii; and
       ``(C) Native Hawaiian females lose and average of 4 years 
     of productive life lost from accidents but this rate is the 
     highest rate among all females in the State of Hawaii.
       ``(4) Dental health.--With respect to dental health--
       ``(A) Native Hawaiian children exhibit among the highest 
     rates of dental caries in the nation, and the highest in the 
     State of Hawaii as compared to the 5 other major ethnic 
     groups in the State;
       ``(B) the average number of decayed or filled primary teeth 
     for Native Hawaiian children ages 5 through 9 years was 4.3 
     as compared with 3.7 for the entire State of Hawaii and 1.9 
     for the United States; and
       ``(C) the proportion of Native Hawaiian children ages 5 
     through 12 years with unmet treatment needs (defined as 
     having active dental caries requiring treatment) is 40 
     percent as compared with 33 percent for all other races in 
     the State of Hawaii.
       ``(5) Life expectancy.--With respect to life expectancy--
       ``(A) Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy of 
     all population groups in the State of Hawaii;
       ``(B) between 1910 and 1980, the life expectancy of Native 
     Hawaiians from birth has ranged from 5 to 10 years less than 
     that of the overall State population average; and
       ``(C) the most recent tables for 1990 show Native Hawaiian 
     life expectancy at birth (74.27 years) to be about 5 years 
     less than

[[Page 29712]]

     that of the total State population (78.85 years).
       ``(6) Maternal and child health.--
       ``(A) Prenatal care.--With respect to prenatal care--
       ``(i) as of 1996, Native Hawaiian women have the highest 
     prevalence (21 percent) of having had no prenatal care during 
     their first trimester of pregnancy when compared to the 5 
     largest ethnic groups in the State of Hawaii;
       ``(ii) of the mothers in the State of Hawaii who received 
     no prenatal care throughout their pregnancy in 1996, 44 
     percent were Native Hawaiian;
       ``(iii) over 65 percent of the referrals to Healthy Start 
     in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were Native Hawaiian newborns; 
     and
       ``(iv) in every region of the State of Hawaii, many Native 
     Hawaiian newborns begin life in a potentially hazardous 
     circumstance, far higher than any other racial group.
       ``(B) Births.--With respect to births--
       ``(i) in 1996, 45 percent of the live births to Native 
     Hawaiian mothers were infants born to single mothers which 
     statistics indicate put infants at higher risk of low birth 
     weight and infant mortality;
       ``(ii) in 1996, of the births to Native Hawaiian single 
     mothers, 8 percent were low birth weight (under 2500 grams); 
     and
       ``(iii) of all low birth weight babies born to single 
     mothers in the State of Hawaii, 44 percent were Native 
     Hawaiian.
       ``(C) Teen pregnancies.--With respect to births--
       ``(i) in 1993 and 1994, Native Hawaiians had the highest 
     percentage of teen (individuals who were less than 18 years 
     or age) births (8.1 percent) compared to the rate for all 
     other races in the State of Hawaii (3.6 percent);
       ``(ii) in 1996, nearly 53 percent of all mothers in Hawaii 
     under 18 years of age were Native Hawaiian;
       ``(iii) lower rates of abortion (a third lower than for the 
     statewide population) among Hawaiian women may account in 
     part, for the higher percentage of live births;
       ``(iv) in 1995, of the births to mothers age 14 years and 
     younger in Hawaii, 66 percent were Native Hawaiian; and
       ``(v) in 1996, of the births in this same group, 48 percent 
     were Native Hawaiian.
       ``(D) Fetal mortality.--In 1996, Native Hawaiian fetal 
     mortality rates comprised 15 percent of all fetal deaths for 
     the State of Hawaii. However, for fetal deaths occurring in 
     mothers under the age of 18 years, 32 percent were Native 
     Hawaiian, and for mothers 18 through 24 years of age, 28 
     percent were Native Hawaiians.
       ``(7) Mental health.--
       ``(A) Alcohol and drug abuse.--With respect to alcohol and 
     drug abuse--
       ``(i) Native Hawaiians represent 38 percent of the total 
     admissions to Department of Health, Alcohol, Drugs and Other 
     Drugs, funded substance abuse treatment programs;
       ``(ii) in 1997, the prevalence of smoking by Native 
     Hawaiians was 28.5 percent, a rate that is 53 percent higher 
     than that for all other races in the State of Hawaii which is 
     18.6 percent;
       ``(iii) Native Hawaiians have the highest prevalence rates 
     of acute drinking (31 percent), a rate that is 79 percent 
     higher than that for all other races in the State of Hawaii;
       ``(iv) the chronic drinking rate among Native Hawaiians is 
     54 percent higher than that for all other races in the State 
     of Hawaii;
       ``(v) in 1991, 40 percent of the Native Hawaiian adults 
     surveyed reported having used marijuana compared with 30 
     percent for all other races in the State of Hawaii; and
       ``(vi) nine percent of the Native Hawaiian adults surveyed 
     reported that they are current users (within the past year) 
     of marijuana, compared with 6 percent for all other races in 
     the State of Hawaii.
       ``(B) Crime.--With respect to crime--
       ``(i) in 1996, of the 5,944 arrests that were made for 
     property crimes in the State of Hawaii, arrests of Native 
     Hawaiians comprised 20 percent of that total;
       ``(ii) Native Hawaiian juveniles comprised a third of all 
     juvenile arrests in 1996;
       ``(iii) In 1996, Native Hawaiians represented 21 percent of 
     the 8,000 adults arrested for violent crimes in the State of 
     Hawaii, and 38 percent of the 4,066 juvenile arrests;
       ``(iv) Native Hawaiians are over-represented in the prison 
     population in Hawaii;
       ``(v) in 1995 and 1996 Native Hawaiians comprised 36.5 
     percent of the sentenced felon prison population in Hawaii, 
     as compared to 20.5 percent for Caucasian Americans, 3.7 
     percent for Japanese Americans, and 6 percent for Chinese 
     Americans;
       ``(vi) in 1995 and 1996 Native Hawaiians made up 45.4 
     percent of the technical violator population, and at the 
     Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Native Hawaiians 
     constituted 51.6 percent of all detainees in fiscal year 
     1997; and
       ``(vii) based on anecdotal information from inmates at the 
     Halawa Correction Facilities, Native Hawaiians are estimated 
     to comprise between 60 and 70 percent of all inmates.
       ``(8) Health professions education and training.--With 
     respect to health professions education and training--
       ``(A) Native Hawaiians age 25 years and older have a 
     comparable rate of high school completion, however, the rates 
     of baccalaureate degree achievement amongst Native Hawaiians 
     are less than the norm in the State of Hawaii (6.9 percent 
     and 15.76 percent respectively);
       ``(B) Native Hawaiian physicians make up 4 percent of the 
     total physician workforce in the State of Hawaii; and
       ``(C) in fiscal year 1997, Native Hawaiians comprised 8 
     percent of those individuals who earned Bachelor's Degrees, 
     14 percent of those individuals who earned professional 
     diplomas, 6 percent of those individuals who earned Master's 
     Degrees, and less than 1 percent of individuals who earned 
     doctoral degrees at the University of Hawaii.

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Disease prevention.--The term `disease prevention' 
     includes--
       ``(A) immunizations;
       ``(B) control of high blood pressure;
       ``(C) control of sexually transmittable diseases;
       ``(D) prevention and control of diabetes;
       ``(E) control of toxic agents;
       ``(F) occupational safety and health;
       ``(G) accident prevention;
       ``(H) fluoridation of water;

       ``(I) control of infectious agents; and

       ``(J) provision of mental health care.
       ``(2) Health promotion.--The term `health promotion' 
     includes--
       ``(A) pregnancy and infant care, including prevention of 
     fetal alcohol syndrome;
       ``(B) cessation of tobacco smoking;
       ``(C) reduction in the misuse of alcohol and drugs;
       ``(D) improvement of nutrition;
       ``(E) improvement in physical fitness;
       ``(F) family planning;
       ``(G) control of stress;
       ``(H) reduction of major behavioral risk factors and 
     promotion of healthy lifestyle practices; and

       ``(I) integration of cultural approaches to health and 
     well-being, including traditional practices relating to the 
     land (`aina), water (wai), and ocean (kai).

       ``(3) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means 
     any individual who is Kanaka Maoli (a descendant of the 
     aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised 
     sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of 
     Hawaii) as evidenced by--
       ``(A) genealogical records,
       ``(B) Kupuna (elders) or Kama`aina (long-term community 
     residents) verification; or
       ``(C) birth records of the State of Hawaii.
       ``(4) Native hawaiian health care system.--The term `Native 
     Hawaiian health care system' means an entity--
       ``(A) which is organized under the laws of the State of 
     Hawaii;
       ``(B) which provides or arranges for health care services 
     through practitioners licensed by the State of Hawaii, where 
     licensure requirements are applicable;
       ``(C) which is a public or nonprofit private entity;
       ``(D) in which Native Hawaiian health practitioners 
     significantly participate in the planning, management, 
     monitoring, and evaluation of health care services;
       ``(E) which may be composed of as many as 8 Native Hawaiian 
     health care systems as necessary to meet the health care 
     needs of each island's Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(F) which is--
       ``(i) recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose of 
     planning, conducting, or administering programs, or portions 
     of programs, authorized by this chapter for the benefit of 
     Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(ii) certified by Papa Ola Lokahi as having the 
     qualifications and the capacity to provide the services and 
     meet the requirements under the contract the Native Hawaiian 
     health care system enters into with the Secretary or the 
     grant the Native Hawaiian health care system receives from 
     the Secretary pursuant to this Act.
       ``(5) Native hawaiian organization.--The term `Native 
     Hawaiian organization' means any organization--
       ``(A) which serves the interests of Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(B) which is--
       ``(i) recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose of 
     planning, conducting, or administering programs (or portions 
     of programs) authorized under this Act for the benefit of 
     Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(ii) a public or nonprofit private entity.
       ``(6) Papa ola lokahi.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' means an 
     organization that is composed of public agencies and private 
     organizations focusing on improving the health status of 
     Native Hawaiians. Board members of such organization may 
     include representation from--
       ``(i) E Ola Mau;
       ``(ii) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs of the State of 
     Hawaii;
       ``(iii) Alu Like Inc.;
       ``(iv) the University of Hawaii;
       ``(v) the Hawaii State Department of Health;
       ``(vi) the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, or other 
     Native Hawaiian organization responsible for the 
     administration of the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship 
     Program;
       ``(vii) the Hawaii State Primary Care Association, or other 
     organizations responsible for the placement of scholars from 
     the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program;
       ``(viii) Ahahui O Na Kauka, the Native Hawaiian Physicians 
     Association;

[[Page 29713]]

       ``(ix) Ho`ola Lahui Hawaii, or a health care system serving 
     Kaua`i or Ni`ihau, and which may be composed of as many 
     health care centers as are necessary to meet the health care 
     needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands;
       ``(x) Ke Ola Mamo, or a health care system serving the 
     island of O`ahu and which may be composed of as many health 
     care centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs 
     of the Native Hawaiians of that island;
       ``(xi) Na Pu`uwai or a health care system serving Moloka`i 
     or Lana`i, and which may be composed of as many health care 
     centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs of the 
     Native Hawaiians of those islands;
       ``(xii) Hui No Ke Ola Pono, or a health care system serving 
     the island of Maui, and which may be composed of as many 
     health care centers as are necessary to meet the health care 
     needs of the Native Hawaiians of that island;
       ``(xiii) Hui Malama Ola Ha `Oiwi, or a health care system 
     serving the island of Hawaii, and which may be composed of as 
     many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health 
     care needs of the Native Hawaiians of that island;
       ``(xiv) other Native Hawaiian health care systems as 
     certified and recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi in accordance 
     with this Act; and
       ``(xv) such other member organizations as the Board of Papa 
     Ola Lokahi may admit from time to time, based upon 
     satisfactory demonstration of a record of contribution to the 
     health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Such term does not include any 
     organization described in subparagraph (A) if the Secretary 
     determines that such organization has not developed a mission 
     statement with clearly defined goals and objectives for the 
     contributions the organization will make to the Native 
     Hawaiian health care systems, and an action plan for carrying 
     out those goals and objectives.
       ``(7) Primary health services.--The term `primary health 
     services' means--
       ``(A) services of physicians, physicians' assistants, nurse 
     practitioners, and other health professionals;
       ``(B) diagnostic laboratory and radiologic services;
       ``(C) preventive health services including perinatal 
     services, well child services, family planning services, 
     nutrition services, home health services, and, generally, all 
     those services associated with enhanced health and wellness.
       ``(D) emergency medical services;
       ``(E) transportation services as required for adequate 
     patient care;
       ``(F) preventive dental services; and
       ``(G) pharmaceutical and nutraceutical services.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(9) Traditional native hawaiian healer.--The term 
     `traditional Native Hawaiian healer' means a practitioner--
       ``(A) who--
       ``(i) is of Native Hawaiian ancestry; and
       ``(ii) has the knowledge, skills, and experience in direct 
     personal health care of individuals; and
       ``(B) whose knowledge, skills, and experience are based on 
     demonstrated learning of Native Hawaiian healing practices 
     acquired by--
       ``(i) direct practical association with Native Hawaiian 
     elders; and
       ``(ii) oral traditions transmitted from generation to 
     generation.

     ``SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       ``(a) Congress.--Congress hereby declares that it is the 
     policy of the United States in fulfillment of its special 
     responsibilities and legal obligations to the indigenous 
     people of Hawaii resulting from the unique and historical 
     relationship between the United States and the indigenous 
     people of Hawaii--
       ``(1) to raise the health status of Native Hawaiians to the 
     highest possible health level; and
       ``(2) to provide existing Native Hawaiian health care 
     programs with all resources necessary to effectuate this 
     policy.
       ``(b) Intent of Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--It is the intent of the Congress that--
       ``(A) health care programs having a demonstrated effect of 
     substantially reducing or eliminating the over-representation 
     of Native Hawaiians among those suffering from chronic and 
     acute disease and illness and addressing the health needs of 
     Native Hawaiians shall be established and implemented; and
       ``(B) the Nation meet the Healthy People 2010 and Kanaka 
     Maoli health objectives described in paragraph (2) by the 
     year 2010.
       ``(2) Healthy people and kanaka maoli health objectives.--
     The Healthy People 2010 and Kanaka Maoli health objectives 
     described in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Chronic disease and illness.--
       ``(i) Cardiovascular disease.--With respect to 
     cardiovascular disease--

       ``(I) to increase to 75 percent the proportion of females 
     who are aware that cardiovascular disease (heart disease and 
     stroke) is the leading cause of death for all females.
       ``(II) to increase to at least 95 percent the proportion of 
     adults who have had their blood pressure measured within the 
     preceding 2 years and can state whether their blood pressure 
     was normal or high; and
       ``(III) to increase to at least 75 percent the proportion 
     of adults who have had their blood cholesterol checked within 
     the preceding 5 years.

       ``(ii) Diabetes.--With respect to diabetes--

       ``(I) to increase to 80 percent the proportion of persons 
     with diabetes whose condition has been diagnosed;
       ``(II) to increase to at least 20 percent the proportion of 
     patients with diabetes who annually obtain lipid assessment 
     (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, 
     triglyceride); and
       ``(III) to increase to 52 percent the proportion of persons 
     with diabetes who have received formal diabetes education.

       ``(iii) Cancer.--With respect to cancer--

       ``(I) to increase to at least 95 percent the proportion of 
     women age 18 and older who have ever received a Pap test and 
     to at least 85 percent those who have received a Pap test 
     within the preceding 3 years; and
       ``(II) to increase to at least 40 percent the proportion of 
     women age 40 and older who have received a breast examination 
     and a mammogram within the preceding 2 years.

       ``(iv) Dental health.--With respect to dental health--

       ``(I) to reduce untreated cavities in the primary and 
     permanent teeth (mixed dentition) so that the proportion of 
     children with decayed teeth not filled is not more than 12 
     percent among children ages 2 through 4, 22 percent among 
     children ages 6 through 8, and 15 percent among adolescents 
     ages 8 through 15;
       ``(II) to increase to at least 70 percent the proportion of 
     children ages 8 through 14 who have received protective 
     sealants in permanent molar teeth; and
       ``(III) to increase to at least 70 percent the proportion 
     of adults age 18 and older using the oral health care system 
     each year.

       ``(v) Mental health.--With respect to mental health--

       ``(I) to incorporate or support land(`aina)-based, 
     water(wai)-based, or the ocean(kai)-based programs within the 
     context of mental health activities; and
       ``(II) to reduce the anger and frustration levels within 
     `ohana focusing on building positive relationships and 
     striving for balance in living (lokahi) and achieving a sense 
     of contentment (pono).

       ``(vi) Asthma.--With respect to asthma--

       ``(I) to increase to at least 40 percent the proportion of 
     people with asthma who receive formal patient education, 
     including information about community and self-help 
     resources, as an integral part of the management of their 
     condition;
       ``(II) to increase to at least 75 percent the proportion of 
     patients who receive counseling from health care providers on 
     how to recognize early signs of worsening asthma and how to 
     respond appropriately; and
       ``(III) to increase to at least 75 percent the proportion 
     of primary care providers who are trained to provide 
     culturally competent care to ethnic minorities (Native 
     Hawaiians) seeking health care for chronic obstructive 
     pulmonary disease.

       ``(B) Infectious disease and illness.--
       ``(i) Immunizations.--With respect to immunizations--

       ``(I) to reduce indigenous cases of vaccine-preventable 
     disease;
       ``(II) to achieve immunization coverage of at least 90 
     percent among children between 19 and 35 months of age; and
       ``(III) to increase to 90 percent the rate of immunization 
     coverage among adults 65 years of age or older, and 60 
     percent for high-risk adults between 18 and 64 years of age.

       ``(ii) Sexually transmitted diseases, hiv; aids.--To 
     increase the number of HIV-infected adolescents and adults in 
     care who receive treatment consistent with current public 
     health treatment guidelines.
       ``(C) Wellness.--
       ``(i) Exercise.--With respect to exercise--

       ``(I) to increase to 85 percent the proportion of people 
     ages 18 and older who engage in any leisure time physical 
     activity; and
       ``(II) to increase to at least 30 percent the proportion of 
     people ages 18 and older who engage regularly, preferably 
     daily, in sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes 
     per day.

       ``(ii) Nutrition.--With respect to nutrition--

       ``(I) to increase to at least 60 percent the prevalence of 
     healthy weight (defined as body mass index equal to or 
     greater than 19.0 and less than 25.0) among all people age 20 
     and older;
       ``(II) to increase to at least 75 percent the proportion of 
     people age 2 and older who meet the dietary guidelines' 
     minimum average daily goal of at least 5 servings of 
     vegetables and fruits; and
       ``(III) to increase the use of traditional Native Hawaiian 
     foods in all peoples' diets and dietary preferences.

       ``(iii) Lifestyle.--With respect to lifestyle--

       ``(I) to reduce cigarette smoking among pregnant women to a 
     prevalence of not more than 2 percent;
       ``(II) to reduce the prevalence of respiratory disease, 
     cardiovascular disease, and cancer resulting from exposure to 
     tobacco smoke;
       ``(III) to increase to at least 70 percent the proportion 
     of all pregnancies among women

[[Page 29714]]

     between the ages of 15 and 44 that are planned (intended); 
     and
       ``(IV) to reduce deaths caused by unintentional injuries to 
     not more than 25.9 per 100,000.

       ``(iv) Culture.--With respect to culture--

       ``(I) to develop and implement cultural values within the 
     context of the corporate cultures of the Native Hawaiian 
     health care systems, the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship 
     Program, and Papa Ola Lokahi; and
       ``(II) to facilitate the provision of Native Hawaiian 
     healing practices by Native Hawaiian healers for those 
     clients desiring such assistance.

       ``(D) Access.--With respect to access--
       ``(i) to increase the proportion of patients who have 
     coverage for clinical preventive services as part of their 
     health insurance; and
       ``(ii) to reduce to not more than 7 percent the proportion 
     of individuals and families who report that they did not 
     obtain all the health care that they needed.
       ``(E) Health professions training and education.--With 
     respect to health professions training and education--
       ``(i) to increase the proportion of all degrees in the 
     health professions and allied and associated health 
     professions fields awarded to members of underrepresented 
     racial and ethnic minority groups; and
       ``(ii) to support training activities and programs in 
     traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices by Native 
     Hawaiian healers.
       ``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President, 
     for inclusion in each report required to be transmitted to 
     Congress under section 11, a report on the progress made in 
     each toward meeting each of the objectives described in 
     subsection (b)(2).

     ``SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE MASTER PLAN FOR NATIVE 
                   HAWAIIANS.

       ``(a) Development.--
       ``(1) in general.--The Secretary may make a grant to, or 
     enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose 
     of coordinating, implementing and updating a Native Hawaiian 
     comprehensive health care master plan designed to promote 
     comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention 
     services and to maintain and improve the health status of 
     Native Hawaiians, and to support community-based initiatives 
     that are reflective of holistic approaches to health.
       ``(2) Collaboration.--The Papa Ola Lokahi shall collaborate 
     with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in carrying out this 
     section.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF PAPA OLA LOKAHI.

       ``(a) Responsibility.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall be responsible 
     for the--
       ``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating, as 
     appropriate, of the comprehensive health care master plan 
     developed pursuant to section 5;
       ``(2) training for the persons described in subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of section 7(c)(1);
       ``(3) identification of and research into the diseases that 
     are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians, including 
     behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health services; 
     and
       ``(4) the development of an action plan outlining the 
     contributions that each member organization of Papa Ola 
     Lokahi will make in carrying out the policy of this Act.
       ``(b) Special Project Funds.--Papa Ola Lokahi may receive 
     special project funds that may be appropriated for the 
     purpose of research on the health status of Native Hawaiians 
     or for the purpose of addressing the health care needs of 
     Native Hawaiians.
       ``(c) Clearinghouse.--
       ``(1) In general.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall serve as a 
     clearinghouse for--
       ``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated 
     with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) the identification and research into diseases 
     affecting Native Hawaiians;
       ``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds, 
     research projects and publications;
       ``(D) the collaboration of research in the area of Native 
     Hawaiian health; and
       ``(E) the timely dissemination of information pertinent to 
     the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult 
     periodically with Papa Ola Lokahi for the purposes of 
     maintaining the clearinghouse under paragraph (1) and 
     providing information about programs in the Department that 
     specifically address Native Hawaiian issues and concerns.
       ``(d) Fiscal Allocation and Coordination of Programs and 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Recommendations.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide 
     annual recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the 
     allocation of all amounts appropriated under this Act.
       ``(2) Coordination.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall, to the maximum 
     extent possible, coordinate and assist the health care 
     programs and services provided to Native Hawaiians.
       ``(3) Representation on commission.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with Papa Ola Lokahi, shall make recommendations 
     for Native Hawaiian representation on the President's 
     Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
       ``(e) Technical Support.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall act as a 
     statewide infrastructure to provide technical support and 
     coordination of training and technical assistance to the 
     Native Hawaiian health care systems.
       ``(f) Relationships with Other Agencies.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Papa Ola Lokahi may enter into agreements 
     or memoranda of understanding with relevant agencies or 
     organizations that are capable of providing resources or 
     services to the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
       ``(2) Medicare, medicaid, schip.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall 
     develop or make every reasonable effort to--
       ``(A) develop a contractual or other arrangement, through 
     memoranda of understanding or agreement, with the Health Care 
     Financing Administration or the agency of the State which 
     administers or supervises the administration of a State plan 
     or waiver approved under title XVIII, XIX or title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act for payment of all or a part of the 
     health care services to persons who are eligible for medical 
     assistance under such a State plan or waiver; and
       ``(B) assist in the collection of appropriate reimbursement 
     for health care services to persons who are entitled to 
     insurance under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

     ``SEC. 7. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) Comprehensive Health Promotion, Disease Prevention, 
     and Primary Health Services.--
       ``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with Papa Ola Lokahi, may make grants to, or enter into 
     contracts with, any qualified entity for the purpose of 
     providing comprehensive health promotion and disease 
     prevention services, as well as primary health services, to 
     Native Hawaiians who desire and are committed to bettering 
     their own health.
       ``(2) Preference.--In making grants and entering into 
     contracts under this subsection, the Secretary shall give 
     preference to Native Hawaiian health care systems and Native 
     Hawaiian organizations and, to the extent feasible, health 
     promotion and disease prevention services shall be performed 
     through Native Hawaiian health care systems.
       ``(3) Qualified entity.--An entity is a qualified entity 
     for purposes of paragraph (1) if the entity is a Native 
     Hawaiian health care system.
       ``(4) Limitation on number of entities.--The Secretary may 
     make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, not more than 
     8 Native Hawaiian health care systems under this subsection 
     during any fiscal year.
       ``(b) Planning Grant or Contract.--In addition to grants 
     and contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary may make a 
     grant to, or enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for 
     the purpose of planning Native Hawaiian health care systems 
     to serve the health needs of Native Hawaiian communities on 
     each of the islands of O`ahu, Moloka`i, Maui, Hawai`i, 
     Lana`i, Kaua`i, and Ni`ihau in the State of Hawaii.
       ``(c) Services to be Provided.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each recipient of funds under subsection 
     (a) shall ensure that the following services either are 
     provided or arranged for:
       ``(A) Outreach services to inform Native Hawaiians of the 
     availability of health services.
       ``(B) Education in health promotion and disease prevention 
     of the Native Hawaiian population by, wherever possible, 
     Native Hawaiian health care practitioners, community outreach 
     workers, counselors, and cultural educators.
       ``(C) Services of physicians, physicians` assistants, nurse 
     practitioners or other health and allied-health 
     professionals.
       ``(D) Immunizations.
       ``(E) Prevention and control of diabetes, high blood 
     pressure, and otitis media.
       ``(F) Pregnancy and infant care.
       ``(G) Improvement of nutrition.
       ``(H) Identification, treatment, control, and reduction of 
     the incidence of preventable illnesses and conditions endemic 
     to Native Hawaiians.
       ``(I) Collection of data related to the prevention of 
     diseases and illnesses among Native Hawaiians.
       ``(J) Services within the meaning of the terms `health 
     promotion', `disease prevention', and `primary health 
     services', as such terms are defined in section 3, which are 
     not specifically referred to in subsection (a).
       ``(K) Support of culturally appropriate activities 
     enhancing health and wellness including land-based, water-
     based, ocean-based, and spiritually-based projects and 
     programs.
       ``(2) Traditional healers.--The health care services 
     referred to in paragraph (1) which are provided under grants 
     or contracts under subsection (a) may be provided by 
     traditional Native Hawaiian healers.
       ``(d) Federal Tort Claims Act.--Individuals that provide 
     medical, dental, or other services referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) for Native Hawaiian health care systems, including 
     providers of traditional Native Hawaiian healing services, 
     shall be treated as if such individuals were members of the 
     Public Health Service and shall be covered under the 
     provisions of section 224 of the Public Health Service Act.

[[Page 29715]]

       ``(e) Site for Other Federal Payments.--A Native Hawaiian 
     health care system that receives funds under subsection (a) 
     shall provide a designated area and appropriate staff to 
     serve as a Federal loan repayment facility. Such facility 
     shall be designed to enable health and allied-health 
     professionals to remit payments with respect to loans 
     provided to such professionals under any Federal loan 
     program.
       ``(f) Restriction on Use of Grant and Contract Funds.--The 
     Secretary may not make a grant to, or enter into a contract 
     with, an entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees 
     that amounts received under such grant or contract will not, 
     directly or through contract, be expended--
       ``(1) for any services other than the services described in 
     subsection (c)(1);
       ``(2) to provide inpatient services;
       ``(3) to make cash payments to intended recipients of 
     health services; or
       ``(4) to purchase or improve real property (other than 
     minor remodeling of existing improvements to real property) 
     or to purchase major medical equipment.
       ``(g) Limitation on Charges for Services.--The Secretary 
     may not make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an 
     entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees that, 
     whether health services are provided directly or through 
     contract--
       ``(1) health services under the grant or contract will be 
     provided without regard to ability to pay for the health 
     services; and
       ``(2) the entity will impose a charge for the delivery of 
     health services, and such charge--
       ``(A) will be made according to a schedule of charges that 
     is made available to the public; and
       ``(B) will be adjusted to reflect the income of the 
     individual involved.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) General grants.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2010 to carry out subsection (a).
       ``(2) Planning grants.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2010 to carry out subsection (b).

     ``SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT FOR PAPA OLA LOKAHI.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other grant or 
     contract under this Act, the Secretary may make grants to, or 
     enter into contracts with, Papa Ola Lokahi for--
       ``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating (as 
     appropriate) of the comprehensive health care master plan 
     developed pursuant to section 5;
       ``(2) training for the persons described in subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of section 7(c)(1);
       ``(3) identification of and research into the diseases that 
     are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians, including 
     behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health services;
       ``(4) the development of an action plan outlining the 
     contributions that each member organization of Papa Ola 
     Lokahi will make in carrying out the policy of this Act;
       ``(5) a clearinghouse function for--
       ``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated 
     with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) the identification and research into diseases 
     affecting Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds, 
     research projects and publications;
       ``(6) the coordination of the health care programs and 
     services provided to Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(7) the administration of special project funds.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2010 to carry out subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in 
     any grant made or contract entered into under this Act such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or 
     appropriate to ensure that the objectives of such grant or 
     contract are achieved.
       ``(b) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically 
     evaluate the performance of, and compliance with, grants and 
     contracts under this Act.
       ``(c) Administrative Requirements.--The Secretary may not 
     make a grant or enter into a contract under this Act with an 
     entity unless the entity--
       ``(1) agrees to establish such procedures for fiscal 
     control and fund accounting as may be necessary to ensure 
     proper disbursement and accounting with respect to the grant 
     or contract;
       ``(2) agrees to ensure the confidentiality of records 
     maintained on individuals receiving health services under the 
     grant or contract;
       ``(3) with respect to providing health services to any 
     population of Native Hawaiians, a substantial portion of 
     which has a limited ability to speak the English language--
       ``(A) has developed and has the ability to carry out a 
     reasonable plan to provide health services under the grant or 
     contract through individuals who are able to communicate with 
     the population involved in the language and cultural context 
     that is most appropriate; and
       ``(B) has designated at least 1 individual, fluent in both 
     English and the appropriate language, to assist in carrying 
     out the plan;
       ``(4) with respect to health services that are covered in 
     the plan of the State of Hawaii approved under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act--
       ``(A) if the entity will provide under the grant or 
     contract any such health services directly--
       ``(i) the entity has entered into a participation agreement 
     under such plans; and
       ``(ii) the entity is qualified to receive payments under 
     such plan; and
       ``(B) if the entity will provide under the grant or 
     contract any such health services through a contract with an 
     organization--
       ``(i) the organization has entered into a participation 
     agreement under such plan; and
       ``(ii) the organization is qualified to receive payments 
     under such plan; and
       ``(5) agrees to submit to the Secretary and to Papa Ola 
     Lokahi an annual report that describes the use and costs of 
     health services provided under the grant or contract 
     (including the average cost of health services per user) and 
     that provides such other information as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(d) Contract Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Determination of noncompliance.--If, as a result of 
     evaluations conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     determines that an entity has not complied with or 
     satisfactorily performed a contract entered into under 
     section 7, the Secretary shall, prior to renewing such 
     contract, attempt to resolve the areas of noncompliance or 
     unsatisfactory performance and modify such contract to 
     prevent future occurrences of such noncompliance or 
     unsatisfactory performance.
       ``(2) Nonrenewal.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance described in 
     paragraph (1) with respect to an entity cannot be resolved 
     and prevented in the future, the Secretary shall not renew 
     the contract with such entity and may enter into a contract 
     under section 7 with another entity referred to in subsection 
     (a)(3) of such section that provides services to the same 
     population of Native Hawaiians which is served by the entity 
     whose contract is not renewed by reason of this paragraph.
       ``(3) Consideration of results.--In determining whether to 
     renew a contract entered into with an entity under this Act, 
     the Secretary shall consider the results of the evaluations 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(4) Application of federal laws.--All contracts entered 
     into by the Secretary under this Act shall be in accordance 
     with all Federal contracting laws and regulations, except 
     that, in the discretion of the Secretary, such contracts may 
     be negotiated without advertising and may be exempted from 
     the provisions of the Act of August 24, 1935 (40 U.S.C. 270a 
     et seq.).
       ``(5) Payments.--Payments made under any contract entered 
     into under this Act may be made in advance, by means of 
     reimbursement, or in installments and shall be made on such 
     conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act.
       ``(e) Limitation on Use of Funds for Administrative 
     Expenses.--Except with respect to grants and contracts under 
     section 8, the Secretary may not make a grant to, or enter 
     into a contract with, an entity under this Act unless the 
     entity agrees that the entity will not expend more than 15 
     percent of the amounts received pursuant to this Act for the 
     purpose of administering the grant or contract.
       ``(f) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year during which an 
     entity receives or expends funds pursuant to a grant or 
     contract under this Act, such entity shall submit to the 
     Secretary and to Papa Ola Lokahi an annual report--
       ``(A) on the activities conducted by the entity under the 
     grant or contract;
       ``(B) on the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds 
     were expended; and
       ``(C) containing such other information as the Secretary 
     may request.
       ``(2) Audits.--The reports and records of any entity 
     concerning any grant or contract under this Act shall be 
     subject to audit by the Secretary, the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Comptroller General of the United States.
       ``(g) Annual Private Audit.--The Secretary shall allow as a 
     cost of any grant made or contract entered into under this 
     Act the cost of an annual private audit conducted by a 
     certified public accountant.

     ``SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into an 
     agreement with any entity under which the Secretary may 
     assign personnel of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services with expertise identified by such entity to such 
     entity on detail for the purposes of providing comprehensive 
     health promotion and disease prevention services to Native 
     Hawaiians.
       ``(b) Applicable Federal Personnel Provisions.--Any 
     assignment of personnel made by the Secretary under any 
     agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall be treated 
     as an assignment of Federal personnel to a local government 
     that is made in

[[Page 29716]]

     accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 5, 
     United States Code.

     ``SEC. 11. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS AND 
                   FELLOWSHIPS.

       ``(a) Eligibility.--Subject to the availability of amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
     provide funds through a direct grant or a cooperative 
     agreement to Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate or another 
     Native Hawaiian organization or health care organization with 
     experience in the administration of educational scholarships 
     or placement services for the purpose of providing 
     scholarship assistance to students who--
       ``(1) meet the requirements of section 338A of the Public 
     Health Service Act, except for assistance as provided for 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(2) are Native Hawaiians.
       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The scholarship assistance under 
     subsection (a) shall be provided under the same terms and 
     subject to the same conditions, regulations, and rules as 
     apply to scholarship assistance provided under section 338A 
     of the Public Health Service Act (except as provided for in 
     paragraph (2)), except that--
       ``(A) the provision of scholarships in each type of health 
     care profession training shall correspond to the need for 
     each type of health care professional to serve the Native 
     Hawaiian health care systems identified by Papa Ola Lokahi;
       ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall select scholarship recipients from a list of eligible 
     applicants submitted by the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate 
     or the Native Hawaiian organization administering the 
     program;
       ``(C) the obligated service requirement for each 
     scholarship recipient (except for those receiving assistance 
     under paragraph (2)) shall be fulfilled through service, in 
     order of priority, in--
       ``(i) any one of the Native Hawaiian health care systems; 
     or
       ``(ii) health professions shortage areas, medically 
     underserved areas, or geographic areas or facilities 
     similarly designated by the United States Public Health 
     Service in the State of Hawaii;
       ``(D) the provision of counseling, retention and other 
     support services shall not be limited to scholarship 
     recipients, but shall also include recipients of other 
     scholarship and financial aid programs enrolled in 
     appropriate health professions training programs.
       ``(E) financial assistance may be provided to scholarship 
     recipients in those health professions designated in such 
     section 338A while they are fulfilling their service 
     requirement in any one of the Native Hawaiian health care 
     systems or community health centers.
       ``(2) Fellowships.--Financial assistance through 
     fellowships may be provided to Native Hawaiian applicants 
     accepted and participating in a certificated program provided 
     by a traditional Native Hawaiian healer in traditional Native 
     Hawaiian healing practices including lomi-lomi, la`au 
     lapa`au, and ho`oponopono. Such assistance may include a 
     stipend or reimbursement for costs associated with 
     participation in the program.
       ``(3) Rights and benefits.--Scholarship recipients in 
     health professions designated in section 338A of the Public 
     Health Service Act while fulfilling their service 
     requirements shall have all the same rights and benefits of 
     members of the National Health Service Corps during their 
     period of service.
       ``(4) No inclusion of assistance in gross income.--
     Financial assistance provided to scholarship recipients for 
     tuition, books and other school-related expenditures under 
     this section shall not be included in gross income for 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2010 for the purpose of funding the 
     scholarship assistance program under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 12. REPORT.

       ``The President shall, at the time the budget is submitted 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for each 
     fiscal year transmit to Congress a report on the progress 
     made in meeting the objectives of this Act, including a 
     review of programs established or assisted pursuant to this 
     Act and an assessment and recommendations of additional 
     programs or additional assistance necessary to, at a minimum, 
     provide health services to Native Hawaiians, and ensure a 
     health status for Native Hawaiians, which are at a parity 
     with the health services available to, and the health status 
     of, the general population.

     ``SEC. 13. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

       ``(a) Authority and Areas of Interest.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with Papa Ola Lokahi, may allocate amounts 
     appropriated under this Act, or any other Act, to carry out 
     Native Hawaiian demonstration projects of national 
     significance. The areas of interest of such projects may 
     include--
       ``(1) the education of health professionals, and other 
     individuals in institutions of higher learning, in health and 
     allied health programs in complementary healing practices, 
     including Native Hawaiian healing practices;
       ``(2) the integration of Western medicine with 
     complementary healing practices including traditional Native 
     Hawaiian healing practices;
       ``(3) the use of tele-wellness and telecommunications in 
     chronic disease management and health promotion and disease 
     prevention;
       ``(4) the development of appropriate models of health care 
     for Native Hawaiians and other indigenous people including 
     the provision of culturally competent health services, 
     related activities focusing on wellness concepts, the 
     development of appropriate kupuna care programs, and the 
     development of financial mechanisms and collaborative 
     relationships leading to universal access to health care;
       ``(5) the development of a centralized database and 
     information system relating to the health care status, heath 
     care needs, and wellness of Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(6) the establishment of a Native Hawaiian Center of 
     Excellence for Nursing at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, a 
     Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Mental Health at the 
     University of Hawaii at Manoa, a Native Hawaiian Center of 
     Excellence for Maternal Health and Nutrition at the Waimanalo 
     Health Center, and a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for 
     Research, Training, and Integrated Medicine at Molokai 
     General Hospital.
       ``(b) Nonreduction in Other Funding.--The allocation of 
     funds for demonstration projects under subsection (a) shall 
     not result in a reduction in funds required by the Native 
     Hawaiian health care systems, the Native Hawaiian Health 
     Scholarship Program, or Papa Ola Lokahi to carry out their 
     respective responsibilities under this Act.

     ``SEC. 14. NATIONAL BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON NATIVE HAWAIIAN 
                   HEALTH CARE ENTITLEMENT.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a 
     National Bipartisan Native Hawaiian Health Care Entitlement 
     Commission (referred to in this Act as the `Commission').
       ``(b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 21 
     members to be appointed as follows:
       ``(1) Congressional members.--
       ``(A) Appointment.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     be members of Congress, of which--
       ``(i) two members shall be from the House of 
     Representatives and shall be appointed by the Majority 
     Leader;
       ``(ii) two members shall be from the House of 
     Representatives and shall be appointed by the Minority 
     Leader;
       ``(iii) two members shall be from the Senate and shall be 
     appointed by the Majority Leader; and
       ``(iv) two members shall be from the Senate and shall be 
     appointed by the Minority Leader.
       ``(B) Relevant committee membership.--The members of the 
     Commission appointed under subparagraph (A) shall each be 
     members of the committees of Congress that consider 
     legislation affecting the provision of health care to Native 
     Hawaiians and other Native American.
       ``(C) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission appointed 
     under subparagraph (A) shall elect the chairperson and vice-
     chairperson of the Commission.
       ``(2) Hawaiian health members.--Eleven members of the 
     Commission shall be appointed by Hawaiian health entities, of 
     which--
       ``(A) five members shall be appointed by the Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care Systems;
       ``(B) one member shall be appointed by the Hawaii State 
     Primary Care Association;
       ``(C) one member shall be appointed by Papa Ola Lokahi;
       ``(D) one member shall be appointed by the State Council of 
     Hawaiian Homestead Associations;
       ``(E) one member shall be appointed by the Office of 
     Hawaiian Affairs; and
       ``(F) two members shall be appointed by the Association of 
     Hawaiian Civic Clubs and shall represent Native Hawaiian 
     populations on the United States continent.
       ``(3) Secretarial members.--Two members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall possess 
     knowledge of the health concerns and wellness issues facing 
     Native Hawaiians.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The members of the Commission shall 
     serve for the life of the Commission.
       ``(2) Initial appointment of members.--The members of the 
     Commission shall be appointed under subsection (b)(1) not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and the remaining members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     members are appointed under such subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the membership of the 
     Commission shall be filled in the manner in which the 
     original appointment was made.
       ``(d) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall carry 
     out the following duties and functions:
       ``(1) Review and analyze the recommendations of the report 
     of the study committee established under paragraph (3).

[[Page 29717]]

       ``(2) Make recommendations to Congress for the provision of 
     health services to Native Hawaiian individuals as an 
     entitlement, giving due regard to the effects of a program on 
     existing health care delivery systems for Native Hawaiians 
     and the effect of such programs on self-determination and 
     their reconciliation.
       ``(3) Establish a study committee to be composed of at 
     least 10 members from the Commission, including 4 members of 
     the members appointed under subsection (b)(1), 5 of the 
     members appointed under subsection (b)(2), and 1 of the 
     members appointed by the Secretary under subsection (b)(3), 
     which shall--
       ``(A) to the extent necessary to carry out its duties, 
     collect and compile data necessary to understand the extent 
     of Native Hawaiian needs with regards to the provision of 
     health services, including holding hearings and soliciting 
     the views of Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian 
     organizations, and which may include authorizing and funding 
     feasibility studies of various models for all Native Hawaiian 
     beneficiaries and their families, including those that live 
     on the United States continent;
       ``(B) make recommendations to the Commission for 
     legislation that will provide for the culturally-competent 
     and appropriate provision of health services for Native 
     Hawaiians as an entitlement, which shall, at a minimum, 
     address issues of eligibility and benefits to be provided, 
     including recommendations regarding from whom such health 
     services are to be provided and the cost and mechanisms for 
     funding of the health services to be provided;
       ``(C) determine the effect of the enactment of such 
     recommendations on the existing system of delivery of health 
     services for Native Hawaiians;
       ``(D) determine the effect of a health service entitlement 
     program for Native Hawaiian individuals on their self-
     determination and the reconciliation of their relationship 
     with the United States;
       ``(E) not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     appointment of all members of the Commission, make a written 
     report of its findings and recommendations to the Commission, 
     which report shall include a statement of the minority and 
     majority position of the committee and which shall be 
     disseminated, at a minimum, to Native Hawaiian organizations 
     and agencies and health organizations referred to in 
     subsection (b)(2) for comment to the Commission; and
       ``(F) report regularly to the full Commission regarding the 
     findings and recommendations developed by the committee in 
     the course of carrying out its duties under this section.
       ``(4) Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     appointment of all members of the Commission, submit a 
     written report to Congress containing a recommendation of 
     policies and legislation to implement a policy that would 
     establish a health care system for Native Hawaiians, grounded 
     in their culture, and based on the delivery of health 
     services as an entitlement, together with a determination of 
     the implications of such an entitlement system on existing 
     health care delivery systems for Native Hawaiians and their 
     self-determination and the reconciliation of their 
     relationship with the United States.
       ``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Compensation and expenses.--
       ``(A) Congressional members.--Each member of the Commission 
     appointed under subsection (b)(1) shall not receive any 
     additional compensation, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Commission. Such members shall receive 
     travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(B) Other members.--The members of the Commission 
     appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b) 
     shall, while serving on the business of the Commission 
     (including travel time), receive compensation at the per diem 
     equivalent of the rate provided for individuals under level 
     IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and while serving away from their home or 
     regular place of business, be allowed travel expenses, as 
     authorized by the chairperson of the Commission.
       ``(C) other personnel.--For purposes of compensation (other 
     than compensation of the members of the Commission) and 
     employment benefits, rights, and privileges, all personnel of 
     the Commission shall be treated as if they were employees of 
     the Senate.
       ``(2) Meetings and quorum.--
       ``(A) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the chairperson.
       ``(B) Quorum.--A quorum of the Commission shall consist of 
     not less than 12 members, of which--
       ``(i) not less than 4 of such members shall be appointees 
     under subsection (b)(1)l;
       ``(ii) not less than 7 of such members shall be appointees 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) not less than 1 of such members shall be an 
     appointee under subsection (b)(3).
       ``(3) Director and staff.--
       ``(A) Executive director.--The members of the Commission 
     shall appoint an executive director of the Commission. The 
     executive director shall be paid the rate of basic pay equal 
     to that under level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(B) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, the 
     executive director may appoint such personnel as the 
     executive director deems appropriate.
       ``(C) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff of 
     the Commission shall be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title (relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates).
       ``(D) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the executive director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(E) Facilities.--The Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration shall locate suitable office space 
     for the operations of the Commission in the State of Hawaii. 
     The facilities shall serve as the headquarters of the 
     Commission and shall include all necessary equipment and 
     incidentals required for the proper functioning of the 
     Commission.
       ``(f) Powers.--
       ``(1) Hearings and other activities.--For purposes of 
     carrying out its duties, the Commission may hold such 
     hearings and undertake such other activities as the 
     Commission determines to be necessary to carry out its 
     duties, except that at least 8 hearings shall be held on each 
     of the Hawaiian Islands and 3 hearings in the continental 
     United States in areas where large numbers of Native 
     Hawaiians are present. Such hearings shall be held to solicit 
     the views of Native Hawaiians regarding the delivery of 
     health care services to such individuals. To constitute a 
     hearing under this paragraph, at least 4 members of the 
     Commission, including at least 1 member of Congress, must be 
     present. Hearings held by the study committee established 
     under subsection (d)(3) may be counted towards the number of 
     hearings required under this paragraph.
       ``(2) Studies by the general accounting office.--Upon the 
     request of the Commission, the Comptroller General shall 
     conduct such studies or investigations as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       ``(3) Cost estimates.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office or the Chief Actuary of the Health Care Financing 
     Administration, or both, shall provide to the Commission, 
     upon the request of the Commission, such cost estimates as 
     the Commission determines to be necessary to carry out its 
     duties.
       ``(B) Reimbursements.--The Commission shall reimburse the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office for expenses 
     relating to the employment in the office of the Director of 
     such additional staff as may be necessary for the Director to 
     comply with requests by the Commission under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(4) Detail of federal employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to 
     detail, without reimbursement, any of the personnel of such 
     agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying 
     out its duties. Any such detail shall not interrupt or 
     otherwise affect the civil service status or privileges of 
     the Federal employees.
       ``(5) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency shall provide such 
     technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out its duties.
       ``(6) Use of mails.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be 
     considered a commission of Congress as described in section 
     3215 of title 39, United States Code.
       ``(7) Obtaining information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any Federal agency information necessary to 
     enable the Commission to carry out its duties, if the 
     information may be disclosed under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code. Upon request of the chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of such agency shall furnish such 
     information to the Commission.
       ``(8) Support services.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis such 
     administrative support services as the Commission may 
     request.
       ``(9) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing 
     and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from 
     the Government Printing Office, the Commission shall be 
     deemed to be a committee of Congress.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,500,000 to carry out this section. The 
     amount appropriated under this subsection shall not result in 
     a reduction in any other appropriation for health care or 
     health services for Native Hawaiians.

     ``SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict the 
     authority of the State of Hawaii to license health 
     practitioners.

     ``SEC. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET ACT.

       ``Any new spending authority (described in subparagraph (A) 
     of (B) of section 401(c)(2) of

[[Page 29718]]

     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2)(A) 
     or (B))) which is provided under this Act shall be effective 
     for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such amounts as 
     are provided for in appropriation Acts.

     ``SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.

       ``If any provision of this Act, or the application of any 
     such provision to any person or circumstances is held to be 
     invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of 
     such provision or amendment to persons or circumstances other 
     than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected 
     thereby.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1931. A bill to provide a more just and uniform procedure for 
Federal civil forfeitures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                   civil asset forfeiture reform act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing a 
civil asset forfeiture reform bill.
  First and foremost, I want to emphasize that civil asset forfeiture 
is an important tool in America's fight against crime and drugs. Last 
year, the federal government seized nearly $500 million in assets. It 
is vitally important that the fruits of crime and the property used to 
commit crimes are forfeited to the government. In recent years, 
however, there have been numerous examples of civil asset forfeiture 
actions that should not have been taken. While the vast majority of 
civil asset forfeiture actions are justified, there have been cases in 
which government officials did not use good judgment. Some would even 
say that civil asset forfeiture has been abused in some instances by 
overzealous law enforcement officials.
  I will mention just a few examples of such imprudent civil forfeiture 
actions. In United States v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997), 
the court dismissed a forfeiture action involving $506,231 and scolded 
the government for its conduct. In this case, state authorities 
obtained a warrant to search a pizzeria for stolen goods. During the 
search of the restaurant, authorities did not find any stolen goods, 
but they did discover a large amount of currency. Criminal charges were 
not filed against the owners of the restaurant. Nevertheless, alleging 
that the currency was related to narcotics, the federal government 
filed a civil complaint for forfeiture of the $506,231.
  Four years after the money was seized, the court dismissed the 
forfeiture complaint and returned the currency to its owner. The court 
found that the evidence ``does not come close to showing any connection 
between the money and narcotics,'' that ``there is no evidence that 
drug trafficking was going on at the pizzeria,'' and that ``nothing 
ties this money to any narcotics activities that the government knew 
about or charged, or to any crime that was occurring when the 
government attempted to seize the property.'' At the conclusion of the 
case, the court stated that ``we believe the government's conduct in 
forfeiture cases leaves much to be desired.''
  Even more disturbing is United States v. $14,665, 33 F. Supp. 2d 47 
(D. Mass. 1998). In this case, airline officials informed the police 
that a passenger, Manuel Espinola, was carrying a large amount of 
currency in a briefcase. The police questioned Espinola about the 
$14,665 in cash. Espinola, a 23-year-old man who purchased the plane 
ticket in his own name, told the police that he and his brother earned 
the money selling personal care products for a company called Equinox 
International. When the police asked Espinola what the money was going 
to be used for, he stated that he was planning to move to Las Vegas and 
intended to use the cash as a down payment on a home. Espinola told 
police that he did not deposit the currency in a bank because he was 
afraid that it might be attached due to a prior credit problem. 
Espinola also gave the police a pager number of a co-worker who he said 
could verify his employment and his plans in Las Vegas.
  Based on Espinola's explanation, the police officer seized the money 
because the officer believed it was related to purchase narcotics. The 
officer did not arrest Espinola, who had no criminal record.
  After the seizure, in an attempt to get his money back, Espinola 
submitted documents that largely confirmed his explanation of the 
currency, including receipts for personal care products from Equinox 
International and copies of a settlement check from a personal injury 
claim. By contrast, the government offered no additional evidence that 
the currency was related to drugs and was subject to forfeiture.
  The court granted summary judgment to Espinola and, in its order, 
harshly criticized the forfeiture action. The court stated: ``Even in 
the byzantine world of forfeiture law, this case is an example of 
overreaching. The government's showing of probable cause is completely 
inadequate, based on a troubling mix of baseless generalizations, leaps 
of logic or worse, blatant ethnic stereotyping.'' Nearly two years 
after the police seized his money without any evidence it was related 
to narcotics, the court returned the currency to Espinola.
  Other federal courts have also criticized federal civil forfeiture 
actions. For example, in 1992, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
stated: ``We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's 
increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes 
and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.''
  While I believe that these and other cases prove the need for some 
reform of civil asset forfeiture law, I want to take this opportunity 
to praise federal law enforcement officials. Federal law enforcement 
does an outstanding job fighting crime under the most difficult 
circumstances. In short, Mr. President, I believe that the problems 
with civil asset forfeiture have much more to do with defects in the 
law than with the character or competency of federal law enforcement 
officials. Senator Leahy and I drafted this bill to improve civil asset 
forfeiture law and ensure the continued use of civil asset forfeiture 
in appropriate cases.
  The Hatch-Leahy bill makes important improvements to existing law. I 
will describe a few of these improvements today. The first major reform 
places the burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture cases on the 
government throughout the proceeding. Under current law, the government 
is only required to make an initial showing of probable cause that the 
property is connected to criminal activity and is thus subject to 
forfeiture. After the government makes this modest showing, the burden 
then shifts to the property owner to prove that the property was not 
involved in criminal activity. Not surprisingly, the fact that the 
property owner bears the burden of proving the property is not subject 
to forfeiture has been extensively criticized by the federal judiciary 
and numerous legal commentators. As one federal court that has been 
particularly critical of civil asset forfeiture noted, placing the 
burden of proof on the property owner is a ``constitutional anomaly.'' 
United States v. $49,576, 116 F.3d 425 (9th. Cir. 1997). The court in 
$49,576 even questioned whether requiring a property owner to bear the 
burden of proof in a civil forfeiture action is constitutional: ``We 
would find it surprising were the Constitution to permit such an 
important decision to turn on a meager burden of proof like probable 
cause.''
  I, too, believe that placing the burden of proof on the property 
owner contradicts our nation's traditional notions of justice and 
fairness. Under the Hatch-Leahy bill, the government will have the 
burden in civil forfeiture actions to prove by the preponderance of the 
evidence that the property is connected with criminal activity and is 
subject to forfeiture.
  Another major reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves what is known 
as the cost bond. Under current civil forfeiture law, a property owner 
must post a cost bond of the lessor of $5,000 or 10 percent of the 
value of the property seized in order to contest a seizure of property. 
It is important to note that the cost bond merely allows the property 
owner to contest the forfeiture. It does not entitle the property owner 
to the return of the property pending trial.
  I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to require a person to post 
a bond

[[Page 29719]]

in order to be allowed to contest the seizure of property. For example, 
what if the government required persons who were indicted to post a 
bond to contest the indictment? Such a requirement would be 
unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. I believe that requiring a 
property owner to post a bond to contest the seizure of property is no 
less objectionable. Such a requirement, Mr. President, seems un-
American. The framers of our Constitution would be appalled to know 
that the federal government, after seizing private property, required 
the property owner to post a bond in order to contest the seizure.
  The Justice Department argues that the cost bond requirement reduces 
frivolous claims. To address this concern, the Hatch-Leahy bill 
requires that a person who challenges a forfeiture must file his claim 
to the property under oath, subject to penalty of perjury. I predict 
that eliminating the cost bond will produce, at most, minor 
inconveniences because persons who file frivolous claims will be 
deterred by the substantial legal fees and costs incurred in contesting 
the forfeiture. After all, who is willing to hire counsel and pay other 
expenses to litigate a frivolous claim, especially when subject to 
penalty of perjury?
  Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill addresses the situation in 
which the government's possession of seized property pending trial 
causes hardship to the property owner. Under current law, the 
government maintains possession of seized property pending trial even 
if it causes hardship to the property owner. A common example of such 
hardship is where the government seizes an automobile, and the seizure 
prevents the property owner or members of the property owner's family 
from getting to and from work pending the forfeiture trial. The Hatch-
Leahy bill changes current law to allow, but not require, the court to 
release property pending trial if the court determines that the 
hardship to the property owner of continued possession by the 
government outweighs the risk that the property will be damaged or 
lost. This is a common sense reform that allows the court to release 
property in appropriate cases.
  Another reform in the Hatch-Leahy bill involves reimbursement of 
attorney fees. The Hatch-Leahy bill awards attorney fees and costs to 
property owners who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture 
cases. The costs of contesting a civil forfeiture of property can be 
substantial. The award of attorney fees and costs to property owners 
who prevail against the government in civil forfeiture cases is 
justified because unlike criminal forfeiture actions, the property 
owner is not charged with a crime. Instead, the government proceeds 
``in rem'' against the property. Given that the government does not sue 
or indict the property owner, it is unfair for the property owner to 
have to incur attorney fees and costs when the government does not 
prevail in civil forfeiture actions.
  The award of attorney fees is also justified because the government 
only has to prove its case against the property by a preponderance of 
the evidence. By contrast, the government must prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture in criminal 
forfeiture actions. If the government decides to pursue a civil 
forfeiture action instead of the more difficult to prove criminal 
forfeiture action, it should be obligated to pay the attorney fees and 
costs of the property owner when the property owner prevails.
  Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that while the Hatch-Leahy 
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act contains important reforms; it 
retains civil forfeiture as an important tool for law enforcement. In 
fact, the Hatch-Leahy bill is a cautious, responsible reform. Some 
would even argue that this bill is too modest.
  A comparison of the reforms enacted by the State of California in 
1993 is instructive. For example, California changed its civil 
forfeiture law to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt and achieve a related criminal conviction in most civil asset 
forfeiture cases. The exception to this rule in California involves 
seizures of currency in excess of $25,000. In these cases, the State 
must prove the currency is subject to forfeiture by clear and 
convincing evidence. Also, California abolished the cost bond in civil 
forfeiture cases.
  In short, California's reforms go far beyond anything in the Hatch-
Leahy bill, but these reforms have not undermined civil asset 
forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. The modest reforms in the Hatch-
Leahy bill will add much needed protections for property owners at no 
significant costs to law enforcement. By making these needed reforms, 
the Hatch-Leahy bill will preserve civil forfeiture as a law 
enforcement tool for the future.
  Lastly, I would like to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their 
tireless effort on this legislation. Senator Leahy has been an advocate 
for civil asset forfeiture reform for many years. He is one of the 
leading champions of civil liberties in the Senate. This legislation 
would not have occurred without his interest and persistence, and I 
thank him for his efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section 
summary of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1931

       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 ``Civil Asset Forfeiture 
     Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. CREATION OF GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CIVIL 
                   FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 981 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 981A. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings

       ``(a) Notice; Claim; Complaint.--(1)(A)(i) Except as 
     provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), in any nonjudicial civil 
     forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with 
     respect to which the Government must send written notice to 
     interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to 
     achieve proper service as soon as practicable, and in no case 
     more than 60 days after the date of the seizure.
       ``(ii) In a case in which the property is seized by a State 
     or local law enforcement agency and turned over to a Federal 
     law enforcement agency for the purpose of forfeiture under 
     Federal law, notice shall be sent no more than 90 days after 
     the date of seizure by the State or local law enforcement 
     agency.
       ``(iii) If the identity or interest of a party is not 
     determined until after the seizure or turnover but is 
     determined before a declaration of forfeiture is entered, 
     notice shall be sent to such interested party not later than 
     60 days after the determination by the Government of the 
     identity of the party or the party's interest.
       ``(B) A court shall extend the period for sending notice 
     under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 60 days 
     (which period may be further extended), if the court 
     determines, based on a written ex parte certification of a 
     supervisory official of the seizing agency, that there is 
     reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result, 
     including--
       ``(i) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(ii) flight from prosecution;
       ``(iii) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(iv) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(v) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     unduly delaying a trial.
       ``(C) If the Government does not send notice of a seizure 
     of property in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person 
     from whom the property was seized, and no extension of time 
     is granted, the Government shall return the property to that 
     person without prejudice to the right of the Government to 
     commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time.
       ``(2)(A) Any person claiming property seized in a 
     nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding may file a claim with the 
     appropriate official after the seizure.
       ``(B) A claim under subparagraph (A) may be filed not later 
     than the deadline set forth in a personal notice letter, 
     except that if that letter is not received, then a claim may 
     be filed not later than 30 days after the date of final 
     publication of notice of seizure.
       ``(C) The claim shall state the claimant's interest in the 
     property and be made under oath, subject to penalty of 
     perjury. The seizing agency shall make claim forms generally 
     available on request.
       ``(D) Any person may make a claim under subparagraph (A) 
     without posting bond with respect to the property which is 
     the subject of the claim.
       ``(3)(A) Not later than 90 days after a claim has been 
     filed, the Government shall file a

[[Page 29720]]

     complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims 
     or return the property pending the filing of a complaint, 
     except that a court in the district in which the complaint 
     will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint 
     for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.
       ``(B) If the Government does not file a complaint for 
     forfeiture or return the property, in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A), it shall return the property and may not 
     take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of 
     such property.
       ``(C) In lieu of, or in addition to, filing a civil 
     forfeiture complaint, the Government may include a forfeiture 
     allegation in a criminal indictment. In such case, the 
     Government's right to continued possession of the property 
     shall be governed by the applicable criminal forfeiture 
     statute.
       ``(D) No complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the 
     Government did not have adequate evidence at the time the 
     complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the 
     property by a preponderance of the evidence.
       ``(4)(A) In any case in which the Government files in the 
     appropriate United States district court a complaint for 
     forfeiture of property, any person claiming an interest in 
     the seized property may file a claim asserting such person's 
     interest in the property in the manner set forth in the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, 
     except that such claim may be filed not later than 30 days 
     after the date of service of the Government's complaint or, 
     as applicable, not later than 30 days after the date of final 
     publication of notice of the filing of the complaint.
       ``(B) A person asserting an interest in seized property, in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A), shall file an answer to the 
     Government's complaint for forfeiture not later than 20 days 
     after the date of the filing of the claim.
       ``(b) Appointment of Counsel.--(1) If--
       ``(A) a person in a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding 
     under a civil forfeiture statute is financially unable to 
     obtain representation by counsel; and
       ``(B)(i) the property subject to forfeiture is real 
     property that is being used by the person as a primary 
     residence; or
       ``(ii) the person is represented by counsel appointed under 
     section 3006A of this title in connection with a related 
     criminal case;
     the court may appoint or authorize counsel to represent that 
     person with respect to the claim, as appropriate.
       ``(2) In determining whether to appoint or authorize 
     counsel to represent a person asserting a claim under this 
     subsection, the court shall take into account such factors 
     as--
       ``(A) the person's standing to contest the forfeiture; and
       ``(B) whether the claim appears to be made in good faith.
       ``(3) The court shall set the compensation for 
     representation under this subsection, which shall be 
     equivalent to that provided for court-appointed 
     representation under section 3006A of this title.
       ``(c) Burden of Proof.--In all suits or actions brought 
     under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture 
     of any property, the burden of proof is on the Government to 
     establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
     property is subject to forfeiture. The Government may use 
     evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for 
     forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
     that property is subject to forfeiture.
       ``(d) Innocent Owner Defense.--(1) An innocent owner's 
     interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil 
     forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of 
     proving that he is an innocent owner by a preponderance of 
     the evidence.
       ``(2)(A) With respect to a property interest in existence 
     at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture 
     took place, the term `innocent owner' means an owner who--
       ``(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to 
     forfeiture; or
       ``(ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the 
     forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under 
     the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.
       ``(B)(i) For the purposes of this paragraph, ways in which 
     a person may show that such person did all that reasonably 
     could be expected may include demonstrating that such person, 
     to the extent permitted by law--
       ``(I) gave timely notice to an appropriate law enforcement 
     agency of information that led the person to know the conduct 
     giving rise to a forfeiture would occur or has occurred; and
       ``(II) in a timely fashion revoked or attempted to revoke 
     permission for those engaging in such conduct to use the 
     property or took reasonable actions in consultation with a 
     law enforcement agency to discourage or prevent the illegal 
     use of the property.
       ``(ii) A person is not required by this subparagraph to 
     take steps that the person reasonably believes would be 
     likely to subject any person (other than the person whose 
     conduct gave rise to the forfeiture) to physical danger.
       ``(3)(A) With respect to a property interest acquired after 
     the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, 
     the term `innocent owner' means a person who, at the time 
     that person acquired the interest in the property--
       ``(i) was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value 
     (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for 
     value); and
       ``(ii) did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.
       ``(B) An otherwise valid claim under subparagraph (A) shall 
     not be denied on the ground that the claimant gave nothing of 
     value in exchange for the property if--
       ``(i) the property is the primary residence of the 
     claimant;
       ``(ii) depriving the claimant of the property would deprive 
     the claimant of the claimant's only means of maintaining 
     adequate shelter in the community for the claimant and all 
     dependents residing with the claimant;
       ``(iii) the property is not, and is not traceable to, the 
     proceeds of any criminal offense; and
       ``(iv) the claimant acquired his or her interest in the 
     property through marriage, divorce, or legal separation, or 
     the claimant was the spouse or legal dependent of a person 
     whose death resulted in the transfer of the property to the 
     claimant through inheritance or probate;
     except that the court shall limit the value of any real 
     property interest for which innocent ownership is recognized 
     under this subparagraph to the value necessary to maintain 
     adequate shelter in the community for such claimant and all 
     dependents residing with the claimant.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no 
     person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection 
     in contraband or other property that it is illegal to 
     possess.
       ``(e) Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture.--(1) Any person 
     entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil 
     forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who 
     does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a 
     declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person's 
     interest in the property, which motion shall be granted if--
       ``(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, 
     of the moving party's interest and failed to take reasonable 
     steps to provide such party with notice; and
       ``(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know 
     of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.
       ``(2) If the court grants a motion under paragraph (1), the 
     court shall set aside the declaration of forfeiture as to the 
     interest of the moving party without prejudice to the right 
     of the Government to commence a subsequent forfeiture 
     proceeding as to the interest of the moving party, which 
     proceeding shall be instituted within 60 days of the entry of 
     the order granting the motion.
       ``(3) A motion under paragraph (1) may be filed not later 
     than 6 years after the date that the claimant discovered or 
     had reason to discover that the property was forfeited, 
     subject to the doctrine of laches, except that no motion may 
     be filed more than 11 years after the date that the 
     Government's forfeiture cause of action accrued.
       ``(f) Release of Seized Property.--(1) A claimant under 
     subsection (a) is entitled to immediate release of seized 
     property if--
       ``(A) the claimant has a possessory interest in the 
     property;
       ``(B) the claimant has sufficient ties to the community to 
     provide assurance that the property will be available at the 
     time of the trial;
       ``(C) the continued possession by the Government pending 
     the final disposition of forfeiture proceedings will cause 
     substantial hardship to the claimant, such as preventing the 
     functioning of a business, preventing an individual from 
     working, or leaving an individual homeless;
       ``(D) the claimant's likely hardship from the continued 
     possession by the Government of the seized property outweighs 
     the risk that the property will be destroyed, damaged, lost, 
     concealed, or transferred if it is returned to the claimant 
     during the pendency of the proceeding; and
       ``(E) none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (7) 
     applies.
       ``(2) A claimant seeking release of property under this 
     subsection must request possession of the property from the 
     appropriate official, and the request must set forth the 
     basis on which the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.
       ``(3) If not later than 10 days after the date of a request 
     under paragraph (2) the property has not been released, the 
     claimant may file a motion or complaint in the district court 
     in which the complaint has been filed or, if no complaint has 
     been filed, any district court that would have jurisdiction 
     of forfeiture proceedings relating to the property, setting 
     forth--
       ``(A) the basis on which the requirements of paragraph (1) 
     are met; and
       ``(B) the steps the claimant has taken to secure release of 
     the property from the appropriate official.
       ``(4) The court shall render a decision on a motion or 
     complaint filed under paragraph (3) no later than 30 days 
     after the date of the filing, unless such 30-day limitation 
     is extended by consent of the parties or by the court for 
     good cause shown.
       ``(5) If--

[[Page 29721]]

       ``(A) a motion or complaint is filed under paragraph (3); 
     and
       ``(B) the claimant demonstrates that the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) have been met;
     the district court shall order that the property be returned 
     to the claimant, pending completion of proceedings by the 
     Government to obtain forfeiture of the property.
       ``(6) If the court grants a motion or complaint under 
     paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) the court may enter any order necessary to ensure 
     that the value of the property is maintained while the 
     forfeiture action is pending, including--
       ``(i) permitting the inspection, photographing, and 
     inventory of the property;
       ``(ii) fixing a bond in accordance with rule E(5) of the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims; 
     and
       ``(iii) requiring the claimant to obtain or maintain 
     insurance on the subject property; and
       ``(B) the Government may place a lien against the property 
     or file a lis pendens to ensure that the property is not 
     transferred to another person.
       ``(7) This subsection shall not apply if the seized 
     property--
       ``(A) is contraband, currency or other monetary instrument, 
     or electronic funds unless such currency or other monetary 
     instrument or electronic funds constitutes the assets of a 
     legitimate business which has been seized;
       ``(B) is to be used as evidence of a violation of the law;
       ``(C) by reason of design or other characteristic, is 
     particularly suited for use in illegal activities; or
       ``(D) is likely to be used to commit additional criminal 
     acts if returned to the claimant.
       ``(g) Proportionality.--The claimant may petition the court 
     to determine whether the forfeiture was constitutionally 
     excessive. In making this determination, the court shall 
     compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving 
     rise to the forfeiture. If the court finds that the 
     forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the offense it shall 
     reduce or eliminate the forfeiture as necessary. The claimant 
     shall have the burden of establishing that the forfeiture is 
     grossly disproportional by a preponderance of the evidence at 
     a hearing conducted by the court without a jury.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term 
     `civil forfeiture statute' means any provision of Federal law 
     providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a 
     sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense.
       ``(B) The term `civil forfeiture statute' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law 
     codified in title 19;
       ``(ii) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(iii) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     301 et seq.);
       ``(iv) the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(v) section 1 of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 (40 
     Stat. 233; 22 U.S.C. 401).
       ``(2)(A) The term `owner' means a person with an ownership 
     interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, 
     including a leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security 
     interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest.
       ``(B) The term `owner' does not include--
       ``(i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, 
     or claim against, the property or estate of another;
       ``(ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the 
     bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property 
     seized; or
       ``(iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over 
     the property.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 981 the 
     following:

``981A. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings.''.

     SEC. 3. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO SEIZED PROPERTY.

       (a) Tort Claims Act.--Section 2680(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any goods or merchandise'' and inserting 
     ``any goods, merchandise, or other property'';
       (2) by striking ``law-enforcement'' and inserting ``law 
     enforcement''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that the provisions of this chapter and 
     section 1346(b) of this title apply to any claim based on 
     injury or loss of goods, merchandise, or other property, 
     while in the possession of any officer of customs or excise 
     or any other law enforcement officer, if--
       ``(1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture 
     under any provision of Federal law providing for the 
     forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon 
     conviction of a criminal offense;
       ``(2) the interest of the claimant is not forfeited; and
       ``(3) the claimant is not convicted of a crime for which 
     the interest of the claimant in the property would be subject 
     to forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.''.
       (b) Department of Justice.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to a claim that cannot be 
     settled under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
     the Attorney General may settle, for not more than $50,000 in 
     any case, a claim for damage to, or loss of, privately owned 
     property caused by an investigative or law enforcement 
     officer (as defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United 
     States Code) who is employed by the Department of Justice 
     acting within the scope of his or her employment.
       (2) Limitations.--The Attorney General may not pay a claim 
     under paragraph (1) that--
       (A) is presented to the Attorney General more than 1 year 
     after it occurs; or
       (B) is presented by an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government and arose within the scope of employment.

     SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Section 2465 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; liability for 
       wrongful seizure; attorney fees, costs, and interest

       ``(a) Upon the entry of a judgment for the claimant in any 
     proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized or arrested 
     under any provision of Federal law--
       ``(1) such property shall be returned forthwith to the 
     claimant or his agent; and
       ``(2) if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the 
     seizure or arrest, the court shall cause a proper certificate 
     thereof to be entered and, in such case, neither the person 
     who made the seizure or arrest nor the prosecutor shall be 
     liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or 
     prosecution, nor shall the claimant be entitled to costs, 
     except as provided in subsection (b).
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any civil 
     proceeding to forfeit property under any provision of Federal 
     law in which the claimant substantially prevails, the United 
     States shall be liable for--
       ``(A) reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred by the claimant;
       ``(B) post-judgment interest, as set forth in section 1961 
     of this title; and
       ``(C) in cases involving currency, other negotiable 
     instruments, or the proceeds of an interlocutory sale--
       ``(i) interest actually paid to the United States from the 
     date of seizure or arrest of the property that resulted from 
     the investment of the property in an interest-bearing account 
     or instrument; and
       ``(ii) an imputed amount of interest that such currency, 
     instruments, or proceeds would have earned at the rate 
     described in section 1961, for any period during which no 
     interest was paid (not including any period when the property 
     reasonably was in use as evidence in an official proceeding 
     or in conducting scientific tests for the purpose of 
     collecting evidence).
       ``(2)(A) The United States shall not be required to 
     disgorge the value of any intangible benefits nor make any 
     other payments to the claimant not specifically authorized by 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply if 
     the claimant is convicted of a crime for which the interest 
     of the claimant in the property would be subject to 
     forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 163 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 2465 and inserting 
     following:

``2465. Return of property to claimant; liability for wrongful seizure; 
              attorney fees, costs, and interest.''.

     SEC. 5. SEIZURE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 981(b) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in section 985, any property 
     subject to forfeiture to the United States under subsection 
     (a) may be seized by the Attorney General and, in the case of 
     property involved in a violation investigated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury or the United States Postal 
     Service, the property may also be seized by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury or the Postal Service, respectively.
       ``(2) Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made 
     pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided 
     for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure, except that a seizure may be made without a 
     warrant if--
       ``(A) a complaint for forfeiture based on probable cause 
     has been filed in the United States district court and the 
     court has issued an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims;
       ``(B) there is probable cause to believe that the property 
     is subject to forfeiture and--
       ``(i) the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or 
     search; or
       ``(ii) another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant 
     requirement would apply; or
       ``(C) the property was lawfully seized by a State or local 
     law enforcement agency and has been transferred to a Federal 
     agency in accordance with State law.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 41(a) of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a seizure warrant may be 
     issued pursuant to this subsection by a judicial officer in

[[Page 29722]]

     any district in which a forfeiture action against the 
     property may be filed under section 1355(b) of title 28, and 
     executed in any district in which the property is found.''.
       (b) Drug Forfeitures.--Section 511(b) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Seizure Procedures.--Any property subject to 
     forfeiture to the United States under this section may be 
     seized by the Attorney General in the manner set forth in 
     section 981(b) of title 18, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 6. USE OF FORFEITED FUNDS TO PAY RESTITUTION TO CRIME 
                   VICTIMS.

       Section 981(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) as restoration to any victim of the offense giving 
     rise to the forfeiture, including, in the case of a money 
     laundering offense, any offense constituting the underlying 
     specified unlawful activity; or''.

     SEC. 7. CIVIL FORFEITURE OF REAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 984 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 985. Civil forfeiture of real property

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all civil 
     forfeitures of real property and interests in real property 
     shall proceed as judicial forfeitures.
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in this section--
       ``(A) real property that is the subject of a civil 
     forfeiture action shall not be seized before entry of an 
     order of forfeiture; and
       ``(B) the owners or occupants of the real property shall 
     not be evicted from, or otherwise deprived of the use and 
     enjoyment of, real property that is the subject of a pending 
     forfeiture action.
       ``(2) The filing of a lis pendens and the execution of a 
     writ of entry for the purpose of conducting an inspection and 
     inventory of the property shall not be considered a seizure 
     under this subsection.
       ``(c)(1) The Government shall initiate a civil forfeiture 
     action against real property by--
       ``(A) filing a complaint for forfeiture;
       ``(B) posting a notice of the complaint on the property; 
     and
       ``(C) serving notice on the property owner, along with a 
     copy of the complaint.
       ``(2) If the property owner cannot be served with the 
     notice under paragraph (1) because the owner--
       ``(A) is a fugitive;
       ``(B) resides outside the United States and efforts at 
     service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure are unavailing; or
       ``(C) cannot be located despite the exercise of due 
     diligence,
     constructive service may be made in accordance with the laws 
     of the State in which the property is located.
       ``(3) If real property has been posted in accordance with 
     this subsection, it shall not be necessary for the court to 
     issue an arrest warrant in rem, or to take any other action 
     to establish in rem jurisdiction over the property.
       ``(d) Real property may be seized prior to the entry of an 
     order of forfeiture if--
       ``(1) the Government notifies the court that it intends to 
     seize the property before trial; and
       ``(2) the court--
       ``(A) issues a notice of application for warrant, causes 
     the notice to be served on the property owner and posted on 
     the property, and conducts a hearing to determine if there is 
     probable cause for the forfeiture; or
       ``(B) makes an ex parte determination that there is 
     probable cause for the forfeiture and that there are exigent 
     circumstances that permit the government to seize the 
     property without prior notice and an opportunity for the 
     property owner to be heard.
     For purposes of paragraph (2)(B), to establish exigent 
     circumstances, the Government shall show that less 
     restrictive measures such as a lis pendens, restraining 
     order, or bond would not suffice to protect the Government's 
     interests in preventing the sale, destruction, or continued 
     unlawful use of the real property.
       ``(e) If the court authorizes a seizure of real property 
     under subsection (d)(2), it shall conduct a prompt post-
     seizure hearing during which the property owner shall have an 
     opportunity to contest the basis for the seizure.
       ``(f) This section--
       ``(1) applies only to civil forfeitures of real property 
     and interests in real property;
       ``(2) does not apply to forfeitures of the proceeds of the 
     sale of such property or interests, or of money or other 
     assets intended to be used to acquire such property or 
     interests; and
       ``(3) shall not affect the authority of the court to enter 
     a restraining order relating to real property.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 984 the 
     following:

``985. Civil forfeiture of real property.''.

     SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


   Hatch/Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act--Section-by-Section 
                                Summary


                                overview

       The Hatch/Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act would 
     provide a more uniform procedure for federal civil asset 
     forfeitures while increasing the due process safeguards for 
     property owners. Among other things, the bill (1) places the 
     burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings upon the 
     government, by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) allows 
     for the provision of counsel to indigent claimants where the 
     property at issue is the claimant's primary residence, and 
     where the claimant is represented by court-appointed counsel 
     in connection with a related criminal case; (3) requires the 
     government to pay attorney fees, costs and interest in any 
     civil forfeiture proceeding in which the claimant 
     substantially prevails; (4) eliminates the cost bond 
     requirement; (5) creates a uniform innocent owner defense; 
     (6) allows property owners more time to challenge a seizure; 
     (7) codifies existing practice with respect to Eighth 
     Amendment proportionality review and seizures of real 
     property; (8) permits the pre-adjudication return of property 
     to owners upon a showing of hardship; and (9) allows property 
     owners to sue the government for any damage to their 
     property.


                       section-by-section summary

     SEC. 2. CREATION OF GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CIVIL 
                   FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

       Creates a new section in federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 981A) that establishes general rules for virtually all 
     proceedings under a federal civil forfeiture statute.
       Notice; claim; complaint. Subsection (a) establishes 
     general procedures and deadlines for initiating civil 
     forfeiture proceedings.
       Paragraph (1) provides that, in general, a Federal law 
     enforcement agency has 60 days to send notice of a seizure of 
     property. A court shall extend the period for sending notice 
     for 60 days upon written ex parte certification by the 
     seizing agency that notice may have an adverse result. If the 
     government fails to send notice, it must return the property, 
     without prejudice to the right of the Government to commence 
     a forfeiture proceeding at a later time.
       Paragraph (2) allows property owners more time to challenge 
     a seizure. Any person claiming an interest in seized property 
     may file a claim not later than the deadline set forth in a 
     personal notice letter, except that if such letter is not 
     received, then a claim may be filed not later than 30 days 
     after the date of final publication of notice of seizure. 
     Claims shall be made under oath, subject to penalty of 
     perjury. No cost bond need be posted.
       Paragraph (3) allows the government 90 days after a claim 
     has been filed to file a complaint for forfeiture or return 
     the property, except that a court may extend the time for 
     filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of 
     the parties. If the government does not comply with this 
     rule, it may not take further action to effect forfeiture of 
     the property.
       Paragraph (4) provides that any person claiming an interest 
     in seized property must file a claim in court not later than 
     30 days after service of the government's complaint or, where 
     applicable, not later than 30 days after final publication of 
     notice of seizure. A claimant must file an answer to the 
     government's complaint within 20 days of the filing of such 
     claim.
       Appointment of counsel. Subsection (b) permits a court to 
     appoint counsel to represent an indigent claimant in a 
     judicial civil forfeiture proceeding if the property subject 
     to forfeiture is real property used by the claimant as a 
     primary residence, or the claimant is already represented by 
     a court-appointed attorney in connection with a related 
     Federal criminal case.
       Burden of proof. Subsection (c) shifts the burden of proof 
     in civil asset forfeiture cases to the government, by a 
     preponderance of the evidence. It also makes clear that the 
     government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a 
     complaint to meet that burden of proof.
       Innocent owner. Subsection (d) codifies a uniform innocent 
     owner defense. With respect to a property interest in 
     existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to 
     forfeiture took place, ``innocent owner'' means an owner who 
     did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or who, 
     upon learning of such conduct, did all that reasonably could 
     be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of 
     the property. With respect to a property interest acquired 
     after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken 
     place, ``innocent owner'' means a person who, at the time 
     that person acquired the interest in property, was a bona 
     fide purchaser or seller for value and reasonably without 
     cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture 
     or, in limited circumstances involving a principal residence, 
     a spouse or legal dependent.
       Motion to set aside declaration of forfeiture. Subsection 
     (e) provides that a person who was entitled to notice of a 
     nonjudicial civil forfeiture who did not receive such notice 
     may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture 
     with respect to his or her interest in the property. This 
     subsection codifies current case law holding that such

[[Page 29723]]

     motion must be filed not later than 6 years after the date 
     that the claimant discovered or had reason to discover that 
     the property was forfeited, but in no event more than 11 
     years after the government's cause of action in forfeiture 
     accrued. The common law doctrine of laches applies to any 
     motion made under this subsection. If such motion is granted, 
     the government has 60 days to reinstitute proceedings against 
     the property.
       Release of property to avoid hardship. Subsection (f) 
     entitles a claimant to immediate release of seized property 
     in certain cases of hardship. Among other things, the 
     claimant must have sufficient ties to the community to 
     provide assurance that the property will be available at the 
     time of the trial, the claimant's likely hardship from such 
     continued possession outweighs the risk that the property 
     will be destroyed, damaged, lost, concealed, or transferred 
     if it is returned to the claimant during the pendency of the 
     preceding. Hardship return of property does not apply to 
     contraband, currency, electronic funds, property that is 
     evidence of a crime, property that is specially designed to 
     use in a crime, or any other item likely to be used to commit 
     additional crimes if returned.
       Proportionality review. Subsection (g) implements United 
     States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), which held that a 
     punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of 
     the Eighth Amendment if it is grossly disproportionate to the 
     gravity of the offense.

     SEC. 3. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO SEIZED PROPERTY.

       Amends the federal Tort Claims Act to apply to claims based 
     on injury or loss of property while in the possession of the 
     government, if the property was seized for the purpose of 
     forfeiture but the interest of the claimant was not 
     forfeited.

     SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND INTEREST.

       Amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2465 to provide that, with limited 
     exceptions, in any civil proceeding to forfeit property in 
     which the claimant substantially prevails, the United States 
     shall be liable for (1) reasonable attorney fees and other 
     litigation costs reasonably incurred by the claimant; (2) 
     post-judgment interest; and (3) in cases involving currency, 
     negotiable instruments, or the proceeds of an interlocutory 
     sale, any interest actually paid to the United States, or 
     imputed interest (except where the property was in use as 
     evidence or for testing).

     SEC. 5. SEIZURE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

       Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981(b) to require that seizures be 
     made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as 
     provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure, with limited exceptions.

     SEC. 6. CIVIL FORFEITURE OF REAL PROPERTY.

       Implements United States v. James Daniel Good Real 
     Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993), which held that real property 
     may not be seized, except in exigent circumstances, without 
     giving a property owner notice of the proposed seizure and an 
     opportunity for an adversarial hearing. All forfeitures of 
     real property must proceed as judicial forfeitures. Real 
     property may be seized before entry of an order of forfeiture 
     only if notice has been served on the property owner and the 
     court determines that there is probable cause for the 
     forfeiture, or if the court makes an ex parte determination 
     that there is probable cause for the forfeiture and exigent 
     circumstances justify immediate seizure without a pre-seizure 
     hearing.

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

       Provides that all changes in the bill apply prospectively.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, asset forfeiture is a powerful crime-
fighting tool. It has been a particularly potent weapon in the war on 
drugs, allowing the government to take the cars and boats and stash 
houses amassed by drug dealers and put them to honest use. Last year 
alone, the government was able to seize nearly half a billion dollars 
worth of assets, cutting a big chunk out of criminals' profit stream 
and returning it to the law-abiding community.
  Unfortunately, our nation's asset forfeiture is not fail-safe; it can 
be abused. In hearings on this issue, the Judiciary Committee has heard 
examples of what happens when prosecutorial zeal skirts the boundaries 
of due process, leading to the taking of private property regardless of 
whether the owner is innocent of, or even cognizant of, the property's 
use in an illegal act.
  In recent years, our nation's asset forfeiture system has drawn 
increasing and exceedingly sharp criticism from scholars and 
commentators. Federal judges have also added their voices to the 
growing chorus of concern. In 1992, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
stated, ``We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's 
increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes 
and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.'' 
Four years later, the Eighth Circuit rebuked the government for 
capitalizing on the claimants' confusion to forfeit over $70,000 of 
their currency, and expressed alarm that:

       the war on drugs has brought us to the point where the 
     government may seize . . . a citizen's property without any 
     initial showing of cause, and put the onus on the citizen to 
     perfectly navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth in order to 
     liberate what is presumptively his or hers in the first 
     place. . . . Should the citizen prove inept, the government 
     may keep the property, without ever having to justify or 
     explain its actions.

  Similarly, the Seventh Circuit recently expressed its belief that 
``the government's conduct in forfeiture cases leaves much to be 
desired,'' and ordered the return of over $500,000 in currency that had 
been improperly seized from a Chicago pizzeria.
  Civil asset forfeiture rests upon the medieval notion that property 
is somehow guilty when it causes harm to another. The notion of 
``guilty property'' is what enables the government to seize property 
regardless of the guilt or innocence of the property owner. In many 
asset forfeiture cases, the person whose property is taken is never 
charged with any crime.
  The ``guilty property'' notion also explains the topsy-turvy nature 
of today's civil forfeiture proceedings, in which the property owner--
not the government--bears the burden of proof. Under current law, all 
the government must do is make an initial showing of probable cause 
that the property is ``guilty'' and subject to forfeiture; it is then 
up to the property owner to prove a negative--that the property was not 
involved in any wrongdoing.
  It is time to reexamine the obsolete underpinnings of our civil 
forfeiture laws and bring these laws in line with more modern 
principles of due process and fair play. We must be especially careful 
to ensure that innocent property owners are adequately protected.
  The Hatch-Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act provides greater 
safeguards for individuals whose property has been seized by the 
government. It incorporates all of the core reforms of H.R. 1658, which 
passed the House of Representatives in June by an overwhelming 
bipartisan majority. The Hatch-Leahy bill also includes a number of 
additional reforms which, among other things, establish a fair and 
uniform procedure for forfeiting real property, and entitle property 
owners to challenge a forfeiture as constitutionally excessive.
  During our hearing this year on civil asset forfeiture reform, the 
Justice Department and other law enforcement organizations expressed 
concern that some of the reforms included in the House bill would 
interfere with the government's ability to combat crime. The bill we 
introduce today addresses the legitimate concerns of law enforcement. 
In particular, the bill puts the burden of proof on the government by a 
preponderance of the evidence, and not by clear and convincing 
evidence. The preponderance standard is used in virtually all other 
civil cases, and we believe it is sufficient to protect the interests 
of property owners.
  We have also removed provisions in H.R. 1658 that would allow 
criminals to leave their ill-gotten gains to their heirs, and would bar 
the government from forfeiting property if it inadvertently sent notice 
of a seizure to the wrong address. These provisions did little more 
than create procedural ``gotchas'' for criminals and their heirs, and 
are neither necessary nor desirable as a matter of policy.
  The Hatch-Leahy bill also differs from the House bill in its approach 
to the issue of appointed counsel. Under H.R. 1658, anyone asserting an 
interest in seized property could apply for a court-appointed lawyer. 
There is no demonstrated need for such an unprecedented extension of 
the right to counsel, nor is there any principled distinction between 
defendants in civil forfeiture actions and defendants in other federal 
enforcement actions who are not eligible for court-appointed counsel. 
Moreover, property owners who are indigent may be eligible to obtain 
representation through various legal aid clinics.
  The Hatch-Leahy bill authorizes courts to appoint counsel for 
indigent claimants in just two limited circumstances. First, a court 
may appoint counsel in the handful of forfeiture

[[Page 29724]]

cases in which the property at issue is the claimant's primary 
residence. When a forfeiture action can result in a claimant's eviction 
and homelessness, there is more at stake than just a property interest, 
and it is fair and just that the claimant be provided with an attorney 
if she cannot otherwise afford one. Second, if a claimant is already 
represented by a court-appointed attorney in a related federal criminal 
case, the court may authorize that attorney to represent the claimant 
in the civil forfeiture action. This is both fair and efficient, and 
eliminates any appearance that the government chose to pursue the 
forfeiture in a civil proceeding rather than as part of the criminal 
case in order to deprive the claimant of his right to counsel.
  For claimants who were not appointed counsel by the court, the Hatch-
Leahy bill allows for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and 
costs if they substantially prevail in court. The bill also makes the 
government liable for post-judgment interest on any money judgment, and 
imputed interest in certain cases involving currency or negotiable 
instruments.
  Another core reform of the Hatch-Leahy bill is the elimination of the 
so-called ``cost bond.'' Under current law, a property owner that seeks 
to recover his property after it has been seized by the government must 
pay for privilege by posting a bond with the court. The government has 
strongly defended the ``cost bond,'' not as a device for ensuring that 
its court costs are covered, but as a way of deterring frivolous 
claims. Of course, we are all in favor of deterring frivolous claims, 
but there are ways to deter frivolous claims without offending the 
fundamental principle of equal and open access to the courts, a bedrock 
of our American system of justice. The Hatch-Leahy bill provides that a 
person who challenges a forfeiture must file his claim on oath, under 
penalty of perjury. Claimants also remain subject to the general 
sanctions for bad faith in instituting or conducting litigation. 
Further, most claimants will continue to bear the substantial costs of 
litigating their claims in court. The additional financial burden of 
the ``cost bond'' serves no legitimate purpose.
  Under current law, a property owner has only 20 days from the date of 
first publication of the notice of seizure to file a claim challenging 
an administrative forfeiture, and only 10 days to file a claim 
challenging a judicial forfeiture. It is therefore unlikely that anyone 
who misses the first of three published notices will be able to file a 
timely claim. The Hatch-Leahy bill extends the property owner's time to 
file a claim following administrative and judicial forfeiture actions 
to 30 days. The bill also codifies current Department of Justice policy 
with respect to the time period for sending notice of seizure, and 
establishes a 90-day period for filing a complaint. The bill leaves 
undisturbed current laws and procedures with respect to the proper form 
and content of notices, claims and complaints.
  Finally, the Hatch-Leahy bill will allow property owners to hold on 
to their property while a case in process, if they can show that 
continued possession of the government will cause substantial hardship 
to the owner, such as preventing him from working, and that this 
hardship outweighs the risk that the property will be destroyed or 
concealed if returned to the owner during the pendency of the case. 
Unlike H.R. 1658, the Hatch-Leahy bill adopts the primary safeguards 
that the Justice Department wanted added to the provision--that 
property owners must have sufficient ties to the community to provide 
assurance that the property will not disappear and that certain 
property, such as currency and property particularly suited for use in 
illegal activities, cannot be returned. As amended, the hardship 
provision in the Hatch-Leahy bill is substantially similar to the 
hardship provision in another civil asset forfeiture bill, S. 1701, 
which the Justice Department has endorsed.
  The fact is, the Justice Department has endorsed most of the core 
reforms contained in the Hatch-Leahy bill. Indeed, the Department has 
already taken administrative steps to remedy many of the civil 
forfeiture abuses identified in recent years by the federal courts. For 
this, the Department is to be commended. But administrative policy can 
be modified on the whim of whoever is in charge, and the law remains 
susceptible to abuse.
  It is time for Congress to catch up with the Justice Department and 
the courts on this important issue. Due to internecine fighting among 
law enforcement officials whose views Congress always wants to take 
into consideration, action on civil forfeiture reform has been delayed 
for far too long. The Hatch-Leahy bill strikes the appropriate middle 
ground between the House bill and S. 1701, providing comprehensive and 
meaningful reform while ensuring the continued potency of civil asset 
forfeiture in the war on crime.
  Senator Hatch and I share a longstanding and deeply-held appreciation 
for law enforcement and the officers who work on the front lines to 
protect our families and communities, and we have worked together on a 
number of crime-related issues in the past. I want to commend him for 
his commitment, not just to law enforcement, but to the rights of all 
Americans. It has been my pleasure to work with him on this issue, to 
bring balance back in the relationship between our police forces and 
the citizens of this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 1932. A bill to amend the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 
1998 to revise and extend certain provisions; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                   the ricky ray fairness act of 1999

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last year Congress passed and the 
President signed a significant measure that will, as funds are 
provided, provide compassionate compensation payments to hundreds of 
individuals. Public Law 105-369, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act of 
1998, authorizes payments for hemophiliacs treated with blood products 
infected with HIV during the 1980s as well as their infected spouses 
and children. Last year, Mr. President, you and I, and all of our 
colleagues gave our unanimous consent to this measure because we all 
knew it was the right thing to do. But we accomplished only part of the 
job. We provided compassionate compensation to only a portion of the 
Americans who, through indecisiveness and inaction on the part of 
federal government, became infected with HIV. So today I am introducing 
legislation that will set the record straight and finish what needs to 
be done, and I hope that our colleagues will once again in the name of 
fairness and compassion give this measure their unanimous support.
  I am on the floor today to introduce legislation that will bring much 
needed fairness to hundreds of our citizens. This bill, the Ricky Ray 
Fairness Act of 1999 will finally include those people, other than 
hemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV and contracted AIDS through 
HIV contaminated blood products or tissues.
  The blood crisis of the 1980s resulted in the HIV infection of 
thousands of Americans who trusted that the blood or blood product with 
which they were treated was safe. The tragedy of the blood supply's 
contamination has brought unbearable pain to families all over the 
country. I have heard from dozens over the past months. These are 
people like any of us--like our children and our grandchildren--who 
went to hospitals for standard procedures, emergency care, or were 
transfused due to complications in childbirth. Many children and adults 
were secondarily infected: children through childbirth or HIV-infected 
breast milk and adults through their spouses. Lives were lost and 
futures were ruined. Not only were there physical and emotional costs, 
but there exists a tremendous drain on personal finances as a result of 
lost income and extreme medical expenses. In the minds of these and in 
the minds of members who advocated for the Ricky Ray bill, the federal 
government played the determining role in the tragedy.
  Mr President, these people were infected with HIV because the federal 
government failed to protect the blood supply during the mid-1980s when 
it did

[[Page 29725]]

not use its regulatory authority to implement a wide range of blood and 
blood-donor screening options recommended by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. Had the federal government taken the 
recommendations of the CDC, thousands of American men, women and 
children would not have contracted AIDS through HIV-contaminated blood 
and blood products.
  Sadly, and unfairly, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act as 
passed last year does not include all victims of the blood supply 
crisis. I feel strongly that the Act must be amended to include 
compensation for not only hemophiliacs, but also people who received a 
blood transfusion or blood product in the course of medical treatment. 
Though it was right for us to pass the Ricky Ray Act last year, it 
remains an inequity and a tragedy that the federal government did so 
without including victims of transfusion-associated AIDS.
  Unlike a few individuals, most people infected with HIV through blood 
and blood products have been unable to track the source of their 
infection; nor have they been able to obtain some judicial relief 
through the courts. The community hit by this tragedy has found it 
nearly impossible to make recovery through the courts because of blood 
shield laws in most states that raise the burden of proof for product 
liability claims for blood and blood products. In addition, all States 
have statutes of limitations that prohibit litigation if the suit was 
not filed within a certain period of time.
  I am introducing today what can be the final chapter in our Country's 
responsibility for not adequately protecting the blood supply during 
the 1980s. The Ricky Ray Fairness Act of 1999 provides compassionate 
payments to those infected with HIV contaminated blood, blood 
components, or human tissues. While the change to include transfusion 
cases increases the cost of this bill, many have already noted that 
this bill is not about money, it's about fairness. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in recognizing the terrible tragedy the blood supply crisis 
of the 1980s cast upon all of its victims.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 1934. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
tax credit for business-provided student education and training; to the 
Committee on Finance.


       THE BUSINESSES EDUCATING STUDENTS IN TECHNOLOGY (BEST) ACT

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
with my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, that addresses the 
serious shortage of students graduating from our nation's colleges and 
universities with technology-based education and skills.
  Technology is reshaping our world at a rapid pace. Competition to 
meet the needs, wants, and expectations of businesses and consumers has 
accelerated the rate of technological progress to a level inconceivable 
even a few years ago. Today, technology is playing an increasingly 
important role in the lives of every American and is a key ingredient 
in sustaining America's economic growth. It is the wellspring from 
which new businesses, high-wage jobs, and a rising quality of life will 
flow in the 21st century.
  This profound technological change, coupled with a period of 
sustained fiscal discipline in the federal government, has led to an 
unprecedented period of economic growth in our nation. For the first 
time in three decades, we are enjoying the prospect of budget surpluses 
that could total one trillion dollars over the next ten years. We have 
the lowest unemployment in 29 years. Inflation has fallen to its lowest 
rate in almost 30 years. Our economy has created 20 million new jobs in 
the last seven years.
  If we want to build on this progress, we must encourage people to 
develop and use emerging technologies. Technological progress has 
become the single most important determining factor in sustaining 
economic growth in our economy. It is estimated that technological 
innovation has accounted for as much as half the nation's long-term 
economic growth over the past 50 years and is expected to account for 
an even higher percentage in the next 50 years.
  And yet, there is growing evidence that we are not doing enough to 
prepare people to make the most of this emerging ``New Economy.'' The 
explosive growth in the technology industry has resulted in a growing 
shortage of qualified and educated workers with skills in computer 
science and other technologically advanced systems. For example, more 
than 350,000 information technology positions are currently vacant 
throughout the United States. That is an astounding statistic. While we 
have managed to erase the budget deficit, our nation faces a rising 
knowledge deficit that could just as readily impede economic growth.
  At this moment, there is little sign that this technology deficit 
will be erased. The supply of technology-savvy U.S. college graduates 
appears to be on the wane. In my home state of Connecticut, public and 
private colleges combined produced only 297 computer and information 
science graduates in 1997, a 50 percent decline since 1987. The decline 
in students receiving engineering degrees is even more troubling. From 
1989 to 1999, the number of Connecticut students graduating in this 
field has decreased by 65 percent.
  This trend is not limited to any one state; it is nationwide in 
scope. The number of graduates receiving bachelor of science degrees in 
engineering has fallen to a 17-year low of 19.8 percent. Between 1990 
and 1996, the number of students obtaining high-tech degrees declined 
by 5 percent. These are clearly trends that must be reversed if we wish 
to continue building upon the technological achievements we have 
already made and ensure that our economy can continue to grow and 
create jobs to its full potential.
  Indeed, at large and mid-sized companies, there is already one 
vacancy for every 10 information technology jobs, and eight out of 10 
companies expect to hire information technology workers in the year 
ahead. Over the next decade, the Department of Commerce estimates that 
1.3 million new jobs will be created for systems analysts, computer 
engineers, and computer scientists. Moreover, by 2006, nearly half of 
the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either 
producers or significant users of technology products and services.
  Clearly, we must do more to eliminate this shortage of 
technologically skilled workers. Some have suggested stop-gap measures 
such as extending more visas to foreign nationals who possess the 
skills most in demand here in the United States. More important than 
steps such as this are efforts to promote technology-based learning 
among American students. In Connecticut, many businesses are making 
such efforts. They are establishing scholarships, donating lab 
equipment and computers, planning curricula, and sending employees into 
colleges and universities to instruct and help prepare students for 
technology-based jobs.
  For instance, one Connecticut company, the Bayer Corporation, has 
committed $1.1 million to the University of New Haven over six years to 
help increase the effectiveness of its science curriculum. This 
partnership includes the donation of equipment, scholarships, 
internships, and other efforts that seek to engage students more 
actively in science and technology.
  Another positive example of cooperation between business and academic 
institutions in Connecticut is the support provided to the 
biotechnology program at Middlesex Community-Technical College by the 
Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute and the Curagen 
Corporation. These companies, too, have established scholarships, 
donated lab equipment, and encouraged their research scientists to give 
lectures to students.
  While these partnerships do exist in Connecticut, and indeed, across 
the country, businesses and academic institutions should not be left to 
tackle alone the challenge of helping students obtain the technological 
learning and skills they need to succeed in the new century. The Senate 
has before it the opportunity to assist in this effort, to encourage 
the growth of innovation

[[Page 29726]]

and education, and to address the shortage of skilled high-tech workers 
so vital to our continued technological and economic growth.
  That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce 
legislation that will encourage businesses to form partnerships with 
institutions of higher learning in order to improve technology-based 
learning so that more of our nation's students will be better prepared 
to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
  The ``Businesses Educating Students in Technology,'' or BEST Act, 
will give a tax credit to any business that joins with a university, 
college, or community-technical school to support technology-based 
educational activities which are directly related to the purpose of 
that business. The legislation would allow businesses to claim a tax 
credit for 40 percent of these educational expenses, up to a maximum of 
$100,000 for any one company.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that this tax credit will provide the 
incentive for more of our country's corporate leaders to take a more 
active role in the technological education, training, and skill 
development of our nation's most valuable resource--its students.
  If businesses take advantage of this credit, they will help create a 
larger pool of skilled workers to draw from and, in turn, help our 
nation foster a better educated population that possesses the knowledge 
to succeed in the information-based economy of the future.
  I hope my colleagues join me and Senator Bennett in supporting this 
important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1934

       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 ``Businesses Educating 
     Students in Technology (BEST) Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Technological progress is the single most important 
     determining factor in sustaining growth in the Nation's 
     economy. It is estimated that technological innovation has 
     accounted for as much as half the Nation's long-term economic 
     growth over the past 50 years and will account for an even 
     higher percentage in the next 50 years.
       (2) The number of jobs requiring technological expertise is 
     growing rapidly. For example, it is estimated that 1,300,000 
     new computer engineers, programmers, and systems analysts 
     will be needed over the next decade in the United States 
     economy. Yet, our Nation's computer science programs are only 
     graduating 25,000 students with bachelor's degrees yearly.
       (3) There are more than 350,000 information technology 
     positions currently unfilled throughout the United States, 
     and the number of students graduating from colleges with 
     computer science degrees has declined dramatically.
       (4) In order to help alleviate the shortage of graduates 
     with technology-based education and skills, businesses in a 
     number of States have formed partnerships with colleges, 
     universities, community-technical schools, and other 
     institutions of higher learning to give lectures, donate 
     equipment, plan curricula, and perform other activities 
     designed to help students acquire the skills and knowledge 
     needed to fill jobs in technology-based industries.
       (5) Congress should encourage these partnerships by 
     providing a tax credit to businesses that enter into them. 
     Such a tax credit will help students obtain the knowledge and 
     skills they need to obtain jobs in technology-based 
     industries which are among the best paying jobs being created 
     in the economy. The credit will also assist businesses in 
     their efforts to develop a more highly-skilled, better 
     trained workforce that can fill the technology jobs such 
     businesses are creating.

     SEC. 3. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR BUSINESS-PROVIDED STUDENT 
                   EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 45D. BUSINESS-PROVIDED STUDENT EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     business-provided student education and training credit 
     determined under this section for the taxable year is an 
     amount equal to 40 percent of the qualified student education 
     and training expenditures of the taxpayer for such taxable 
     year.
       ``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 
     $100,000.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified student education and training 
     expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified student education 
     and training expenditure' means--
       ``(i) any amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for the 
     qualified student education and training services provided by 
     any employee of the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) the basis of the taxpayer in any tangible personal 
     property contributed by the taxpayer and used in connection 
     with the provision of any qualified student education and 
     training services.
       ``(B) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The 
     term `qualified student education and training expenditure' 
     shall not include any amount to the extent such amount is 
     funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person 
     (or any governmental entity).
       ``(2) Qualified student education and training services.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
     `qualified student education and training services' means 
     technology-based education and training of students in any 
     eligible educational institution in employment skills related 
     to the trade or business of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Technology-based education and training.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `technology-based education and training' means 
     education and training in--

       ``(I) aerospace technology,
       ``(II) biotechnology,
       ``(III) electronic device technology,
       ``(IV) environmental technology,
       ``(V) medical device technology,
       ``(VI) computer technology or equipment, or
       ``(VII) advanced materials.

       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of clause (i)--

       ``(I) Aerospace technology.--The term `aerospace 
     technology' means technology used in the manufacture, design, 
     maintenance, or servicing of aircraft, aircraft components, 
     or other aeronautics, including space craft or space craft 
     components.
       ``(II) Biotechnology.--The term `biotechnology' means 
     technology (including products and services) developed as the 
     result of the study of the functioning of biological systems 
     from the macro level to the molecular and sub-atomic levels.
       ``(III) Electronic device technology.--The term `electronic 
     device technology' means technology involving 
     microelectronics, semiconductors, electronic equipment, 
     instrumentation, radio frequency, microwave, millimeter 
     electronics, optical and optic-electrical devices, or data 
     and digital communications and imaging devices.
       ``(IV) Environmental technology.--The term `environmental 
     technology' means technology involving the assessment and 
     prevention of threats or damage to human health or the 
     environment, environmental cleanup, or the development of 
     alternative energy sources.
       ``(V) Medical device technology.--The term `medical device 
     technology' means technology involving any medical equipment 
     or product (other than a pharmaceutical product) which has 
     therapeutic value, diagnostic value, or both, and is 
     regulated by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.
       ``(VI) Computer technology or equipment.--The term 
     `computer technology or equipment' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 170(e)(6)(E)(i).
       ``(VII) Advanced materials.--The term `advanced materials' 
     means materials with engineered properties created through 
     the development of specialized processing and synthesis 
     technology, including ceramics, high value-added metals, 
     electronics materials, composites, polymers, and 
     biomaterials.

       ``(C) Eligible educational institution.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `eligible educational institution' 
     has the meaning given such term by section 529(e)(5).
       ``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as 
     a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 
     shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
       ``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the 
     rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
       ``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case 
     of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners 
     under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(f) No Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit shall be 
     allowed under any other provision of this chapter with 
     respect to any expenditure taken into account in computing 
     the amount of the credit determined under this section.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph 
     (12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and

[[Page 29727]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) the business-provided student education and training 
     credit determined under section 45D.''
       (2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

``Sec. 45D. Business-provided student education and training credit.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1935. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of community attendant services and supports under 
the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Finance.


       the medicaid community attendant services and support act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Arlen Specter, I 
am introducing the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports 
Act. Our bill allows people to have a real choice about where they 
receive certain types of Medicaid long term services and supports. It 
also provides grants to the States to assist them as they redirect 
Medicaid resources into community-based services and supports.
  We all know that given a real choice, most Americans who need long 
term services and supports would rather remain in their own homes and 
communities than go to a nursing home. Older people want to stay in 
their homes; parents want to keep their children with disabilities 
close by; and adults with disabilities want to live in the community.
  And yet, even though many people prefer home and community services 
and supports, our current long term care program favors institutional 
programs. Under our current Medicaid system, a person has a right to 
the most expensive form of care, a nursing home bed, because nursing 
home care is an entitlement. But if that same person wants to live in 
the community, he or she is likely to encounter a lack of available 
services, because community services are optional under Medicaid. The 
deck is stacked against community living, and the purpose of our bill 
is to level the playing field and give people a real choice.
  Our bill would allow any person entitled to medical assistance in a 
nursing facility or an intermediate care facility to use the money for 
community attendant services and supports. Those services and supports 
include help with eating, bathing, brooming, toileting, transferring in 
and out of a wheelchair, meal planning and preparation, shopping, 
household chores, using the telephone, participating in the community, 
and health-related functions like taking pills, bowel and bladder care, 
and tube feeding. In short, personal assistance services and supports 
help people do tasks that they would do them selves, if they did not 
have a disability.
  Personal assistance services and supports are the lowest-cost and 
most consumer friendly services in the long-term care spectrum. They 
can be provided by a variety of people, including friends and neighbors 
of the recipient. In many instances, with supervision, the consumer can 
direct his or her own care and manage his or her own attendants. This 
cuts down on expensive administrative overhead and the current practice 
of relying on medical personnel such as nurses to coordinate a person's 
care. States can save money and redirect medically-oriented care to 
those who need it most.
  Not only is home and community-based care what people want, it can 
also be far less expensive. There is a wide variation in the cost of 
supporting people with disabilities in the community because 
individuals have different levels of need. But, for the average person, 
the annual cost of home and community based services is less than one-
half the average cost of institutional care. In 1997, Medicaid spent 
$56 billion on long term care. Out of that $56 billion, $42.5 billion 
was spent on nursing home and institutional care. This paid for a 
little over 1 million people. In comparison, only $13.5 billion was 
spent on home and community-based care--but this money paid for almost 
2 million people. Community services make sound, economic sense.
  In fact, the States are out ahead of us here in Washington on this 
issue. Thirty States are now providing the personal care optional 
benefit through their Medicaid programs. Almost every State offers at 
least one home and community based Medicaid waiver program. Indeed, 
this is one of Senator Chafee's most important legacies. He was ahead 
of his time.
  The States have realized that community based care is both popular 
and cost effective, and personal assistance services and supports are a 
key component of a successful program.
  And yet there are several reasons why we have to do more.
  Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus that Americans 
with disabilities should have the equal opportunity to contribute to 
our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. 
Instead, our current Federal Medicaid policy favors exclusion over 
integration, and dependence over self-determination. This legislation 
will bring Medicaid policy in line with our broader agreement that 
Americans with disabilities should have the chance to move toward 
independence. This bill allows people to receive certain types of 
services in the community so that they don't have to sacrifice their 
full participation in society simply because they require a catheter, 
assistance with medication, or some other basic service.
  Take the example of a friend of mine in Iowa. Dan Piper works at a 
hardware store. He has his own apartment and just bought a VCR. He also 
has Down's syndrome and diabetes. For years Dan has received services 
through a community waiver program. But, he recently learned that he 
might not be able to receive some basic services under the waiver. The 
result of this decision? He may have to sacrifice his independence for 
services. Today, Dan works and contributes to the economy as both a 
wage earner and a consumer. But, tomorrow, he may be forced into a 
nursing home, far from his roommate, his job, and his family.
  In addition, our country is facing a long-term care crisis of epic 
proportions in the not-too distant future. We all talk about the coming 
Social Security shortfall and the Medicare shortfall, but we do not 
talk about the long-term care shortfall. The truth is that our current 
long-term care system will be inadequate to deal with the aging of the 
baby boom generation, the oldest of whom are now turning 60. Our bill 
helps to create the infrastructure we will need to create the high-
quality, community based long term care system of the future. And it 
will give families the small amount of outside help they need to 
continue providing care to their loved ones at home.
  And, finally, in a common sense decision last June, the Supreme Court 
found that, to the extent Medicaid dollars are used to pay for a 
person's long term care, that person has a right to receive those 
services in the most integrated setting. States must take practical 
steps to avoid unjustified institutionalization by offering individuals 
with disabilities the supports they need to live in the community. We 
in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet the financial 
costs associated with serving people with disabilities that want to 
leave institutions and live in the community, and the bill I am 
introducing will provide that help.
  And so I call upon my colleagues for your support. Millions of 
Americans require some assistance to help them eat, dress, go to the 
bathroom, clean house, move from bed to wheelchair, remember to take 
medication, and to perform other activities that make it possible for 
them to live at home. These Americans live in every State and every 
congressional district. Most of these people have depended on unpaid 
caregivers--usually family members--for their needs. But a number of 
factors have affected the ability of family members to help. A growing 
number of elderly people need assistance, and aging parents will no 
longer be able to care for their adult children with disabilities.

[[Page 29728]]

  But they all have one thing in common with every American. We all 
deserve to live in our own homes, and be an integral part of our 
families, our neighborhoods, our communities. Community attendant 
services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead richer, 
fuller lives, perhaps have a job, and participate in the community. 
Some will become taxpayers, some will do volunteer work, some will get 
an education, some will participate in recreational and other community 
activities. All will experience a better quality of life, and a better 
chance to take part in the American dream.
  I urge my colleagues and their staff to study our proposal over the 
break. I hope there will be hearings and action on this bill next year. 
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, along with letters 
in support 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. 1935

       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 ``Medicaid Community Attendant 
     Services and Supports Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Many studies have found that an overwhelming majority 
     of individuals with disabilities needing long-term services 
     and supports would prefer to receive them in home and 
     community-based settings rather than in institutions. 
     However, research on the provision of long-term services and 
     supports under the medicaid program (conducted by and on 
     behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services) has 
     revealed a significant bias toward funding these services in 
     institutional rather than home and community-based settings. 
     The extent of this bias is indicated by the fact that 75 
     percent of medicaid funds for long-term services and supports 
     are expended in nursing homes and intermediate care 
     facilities for the mentally retarded while approximately 25 
     percent of such funds pays for services in home and 
     community-based settings.
       (2) Because of this bias, significant numbers of 
     individuals with disabilities of all ages who would prefer to 
     live in the community and could do so with community 
     attendant services and supports are forced to live in 
     unnecessarily segregated institutional settings if they want 
     to receive needed services and supports. Benefit packages 
     provided in these settings are medically-oriented and 
     constitute barriers to the receipt of the types of services 
     individuals need and want. Decisions regarding the provision 
     of services and supports are too often influenced by what is 
     reimbursable rather than by what individuals need and want.
       (3) There is a growing recognition that disability is a 
     natural part of the human experience that in no way 
     diminishes an individual's right to--
       (A) live independently;
       (B) enjoy self-determination;
       (C) make choices;
       (D) contribute to society; and
       (E) enjoy full inclusion and integration in the mainstream 
     of American society.
       (4) Long-term services and supports provided under the 
     medicaid program must meet the evolving and changing needs 
     and preferences of individuals with disabilities, including 
     the preferences for living within one's own home or living 
     with one's own family and becoming productive members of the 
     community.
       (5) The goals of the Nation properly include providing 
     individuals with disabilities with--
       (A) a meaningful choice of receiving long-term services and 
     supports in the most integrated setting appropriate;
       (B) the greatest possible control over the services 
     received; and
       (C) quality services that maximize social functioning in 
     the home and community.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To provide that States shall offer community attendant 
     services and supports for eligible individuals with 
     disabilities.
       (2) To provide financial assistance to States to support 
     systems change initiatives that are designed to assist each 
     State in developing and enhancing a comprehensive consumer-
     responsive statewide system of long-term services and 
     supports that provides real consumer choice and direction 
     consistent with the principle that services and supports 
     should be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate 
     to meeting the unique needs of the individual.
       (c) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that all 
     programs, projects, and activities receiving assistance under 
     this Act shall be carried out in a manner consistent with the 
     following principles:
       (1) Individuals with disabilities, or, as appropriate, 
     their representatives, must be empowered to exercise real 
     choice in selecting long-term services and supports that are 
     of high quality, cost-effective, and meet the unique needs of 
     the individual in the most integrated setting appropriate.
       (2) No individual should be forced into an institution to 
     receive services that can be effectively and efficiently 
     delivered in the home or community.
       (3) Federal and State policies, practices, and procedures 
     should facilitate and be responsive to, and not impede, an 
     individual's choice in selecting long-term services and 
     supports.
       (4) Individuals and their families receiving long-term 
     services and supports must be involved in decisionmaking 
     about their own care and be provided with sufficient 
     information to make informed choices.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF COMMUNITY ATTENDANT SERVICES AND SUPPORTS 
                   UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) Required Coverage for Individuals Entitled to Nursing 
     Facility Services or Eligible for Intermediate Care Facility 
     Services for the Mentally Retarded.--Section 1902(a)(10)(D) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(D)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(D)'';
       (2) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) subject to section 1935, for the inclusion of 
     community attendant services and supports for any individual 
     who is eligible for medical assistance under the State plan 
     and with respect to whom there has been a determination that 
     the individual requires the level of care provided in a 
     nursing facility or an intermediate care facility for the 
     mentally retarded (whether or not coverage of such 
     intermediate care facility is provided under the State plan) 
     and who requires such community attendant services and 
     supports based on functional need and without regard to age 
     or disability;''.
       (b) Medicaid Coverage of Community Attendant Services and 
     Supports.--
       (1) In general.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 1935 as section 1936; and
       (B) by inserting after section 1934 the following:


              ``community attendant services and supports

       ``Sec. 1935. (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       ``(1) Community attendant services and supports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `community attendant services 
     and supports' means attendant services and supports furnished 
     to an individual, as needed, to assist in accomplishing 
     activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily 
     living, and health-related functions through hands-on 
     assistance, supervision, or cueing--
       ``(i) under a plan of services and supports that is based 
     on an assessment of functional need and that is agreed to by 
     the individual or, as appropriate, the individual's 
     representative;
       ``(ii) in a home or community setting, which may include a 
     school, workplace, or recreation or religious facility, but 
     does not include a nursing facility, an intermediate care 
     facility for the mentally retarded, or other congregate 
     facility;
       ``(iii) under an agency-provider model or other model (as 
     defined in paragraph (2)(C)); and
       ``(iv) the furnishing of which is selected, managed, and 
     dismissed by the individual, or, as appropriate, with 
     assistance from the individual's representative.
       ``(B) Included services and supports.--Such term includes--
       ``(i) tasks necessary to assist an individual in 
     accomplishing activities of daily living, instrumental 
     activities of daily living, and health-related functions;
       ``(ii) acquisition, maintenance, and enhancement of skills 
     necessary for the individual to accomplish activities of 
     daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, and 
     health-related functions;
       ``(iii) backup systems or mechanisms (such as the use of 
     beepers) to ensure continuity of services and supports; and
       ``(iv) voluntary training on how to select, manage, and 
     dismiss attendants.
       ``(C) Excluded services and supports.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (D), such term does not include--
       ``(i) provision of room and board for the individual;
       ``(ii) special education and related services provided 
     under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 
     vocational rehabilitation services provided under the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
       ``(iii) assistive technology devices and assistive 
     technology services;
       ``(iv) durable medical equipment; or
       ``(v) home modifications.
       ``(D) Flexibility in transition to community-based home 
     setting.--Such term may include expenditures for transitional 
     costs, such as rent and utility deposits, first months's rent 
     and utilities, bedding, basic kitchen supplies, and other 
     necessities required for an individual to make the transition 
     from a nursing facility or intermediate care facility for the 
     mentally retarded to a

[[Page 29729]]

     community-based home setting where the individual resides.
       ``(2) Additional definitions.--
       ``(A) Activities of daily living.--The term `activities of 
     daily living' includes eating, toileting, grooming, dressing, 
     bathing, and transferring.
       ``(B) Consumer directed.--The term `consumer directed' 
     means a method of providing services and supports that allow 
     the individual, or where appropriate, the individual's 
     representative, maximum control of the community attendant 
     services and supports, regardless of who acts as the employer 
     of record.
       ``(C) Delivery models.--
       ``(i) Agency-provider model.--The term `agency-provider 
     model' means, with respect to the provision of community 
     attendant services and supports for an individual, a method 
     of providing consumer-directed services and supports under 
     which entities contract for the provision of such services 
     and supports.
       ``(ii) Other models.--The term `other models' means 
     methods, other than an agency-provider model, for the 
     provision of consumer-directed services and supports. Such 
     models may include the provision of vouchers, direct cash 
     payments, or use of a fiscal agent to assist in obtaining 
     services.
       ``(D) Health-related functions.--The term `health-related 
     functions' means functions that can be delegated or assigned 
     by licensed health-care professionals under State law to be 
     performed by an attendant.
       ``(E) Instrumental activities of daily living.--The term 
     `instrumental activities of daily living' includes meal 
     planning and preparation, managing finances, shopping for 
     food, clothing and other essential items, performing 
     essential household chores, communicating by phone and other 
     media, and getting around and participating in the community.
       ``(F) Individual's representative.--The term `individual's 
     representative' means a parent, a family member, a guardian, 
     an advocate, or an authorized representative of an 
     individual.
       ``(b) Limitation on Amounts of Expenditures under this 
     Title.--In carrying out section 1902(a)(10)(D)(ii), a State 
     shall permit an individual who has a level of severity of 
     physical or mental impairment that entitles such individual 
     to medical assistance with respect to nursing facility 
     services or qualifies the individual for intermediate care 
     facility services for the mentally retarded to choose to 
     receive medical assistance for community attendant services 
     and supports (rather than medical assistance for such 
     institutional services and supports), in the most integrated 
     setting appropriate to the needs of the individual, so long 
     as the aggregate amount of the Federal expenditures for 
     community attendant services and supports for all such 
     individuals in a fiscal year does not exceed the total that 
     would have been expended for such individuals to receive such 
     institutional services and supports in the year.
       ``(c) Maintenance of Effort.--With respect to a fiscal year 
     quarter, no Federal funds may be paid to a State for medical 
     assistance provided to individuals described in section 
     1902(a)(10)(D)(ii) for such fiscal year quarter if the 
     Secretary determines that the total of the State expenditures 
     for programs to enable such individuals with disabilities to 
     receive community attendant services and supports (or 
     services and supports that are similar to such services and 
     supports) under other provisions of this title for the 
     preceding fiscal year quarter is less than the total of such 
     expenditures for the same fiscal year quarter for the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(d) State Quality Assurance Program.--In order to 
     continue to receive Federal financial participation for 
     providing community attendant services and supports under 
     this section, a State shall, at a minimum, establish and 
     maintain a quality assurance program that provides for the 
     following:
       ``(1) The State shall establish requirements, as 
     appropriate, for agency-based and other models that include--
       ``(A) minimum qualifications and training requirements, as 
     appropriate for agency-based and other models;
       ``(B) financial operating standards; and
       ``(C) an appeals procedure for eligibility denials and a 
     procedure for resolving disagreements over the terms of an 
     individualized plan.
       ``(2) The State shall modify the quality assurance program, 
     where appropriate, to maximize consumer independence and 
     consumer direction in both agency-provided and other models.
       ``(3) The State shall provide a system that allows for the 
     external monitoring of the quality of services by entities 
     consisting of consumers and their representatives, disability 
     organizations, providers, family, members of the community, 
     and others.
       ``(4) The State provides ongoing monitoring of the health 
     and well-being of each recipient.
       ``(5) The State shall require that quality assurance 
     mechanisms appropriate for the individual should be included 
     in the individual's written plan.
       ``(6) The State shall establish a process for mandatory 
     reporting, investigation, and resolution of allegations of 
     neglect, abuse, or exploitation.
       ``(7) The State shall obtain meaningful consumer input, 
     including consumer surveys, that measure the extent to which 
     a participant receives the services and supports described in 
     the individual's plan and the participant's satisfaction with 
     such services and supports.
       ``(8) The State shall make available to the public the 
     findings of the quality assurance program.
       ``(9) The State shall establish an on-going public process 
     for the development, implementation, and review of the 
     State's quality assurance program.
       ``(10) The State shall develop and implement a program of 
     sanctions.
       ``(e) Federal Role in Quality Assurance.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a periodic sample review of outcomes for 
     individuals based upon the individual's plan of support and 
     based upon the quality assurance program of the State. The 
     Secretary may conduct targeted reviews upon receipt of 
     allegations of neglect, abuse, or exploitation. The Secretary 
     shall develop guidelines for States to use in developing 
     sanctions.
       ``(f) Requirement to Expand Eligibility.--Effective October 
     1, 2000, a State may not exercise the option of coverage of 
     individuals under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(V) without 
     providing coverage under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI).
       ``(g) Report on Impact of Section.--The Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress periodic reports on the impact of this 
     section on beneficiaries, States, and the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (c) Inclusion in Optional Eligibility Classification.--
     Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     community attendant services and supports described in 
     section 1935'' after ``section 1915'' each place such term 
     appears.
       (d) Coverage as Medical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (27) as paragraph (28); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (26) the following:
       ``(27) community attendant services and supports (to the 
     extent allowed and as defined in section 1935); and''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1902(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(j)) is amended by striking ``of of'' and inserting 
     ``of''.
       (B) Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is amended by inserting ``and 
     (27)'' after ``(24)''.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO DEVELOP AND ESTABLISH REAL CHOICE SYSTEMS 
                   CHANGE INITIATIVES.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     award grants described in subsection (b) to States to support 
     real choice systems change initiatives that establish 
     specific action steps and specific timetables to provide 
     consumer-responsive long term services and supports to 
     eligible individuals in the most integrated setting 
     appropriate based on the unique strengths and needs of the 
     individual and the priorities and concerns of the individual 
     (or, as appropriate, the individual's representative).
       (2) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a State shall--
       (A) establish the Consumer Task Force in accordance with 
     subsection (d); and
       (B) submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may determine. 
     The application shall be jointly developed and signed by the 
     designated State official and the chairperson of such Task 
     Force, acting on behalf of and at the direction of the Task 
     Force.
       (3) Definition of state.--In this section, the term 
     ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       (b) Grants for Real Choice Systems Change Initiatives.--
       (1) In general.--From funds appropriated under subsection 
     (f), the Secretary shall award grants to States to--
       (A) support the establishment, implementation, and 
     operation of the State real choice systems change initiatives 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (B) conduct outreach campaigns regarding the existence of 
     such initiatives.
       (2) Determination of awards; state allotments.--The 
     Secretary shall develop a formula for the distribution of 
     funds to States for each fiscal year under subsection (a). 
     Such formula shall give preference to States that have a 
     relatively higher proportion of long-term services and 
     supports furnished to individuals in an institutional setting 
     but who have a plan described in an application submitted 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Authorized Activities.--A State that receives a grant 
     under this section shall use

[[Page 29730]]

     the funds made available through the grant to accomplish the 
     purposes described in subsection (a) and, in accomplishing 
     such purposes, may carry out any of the following systems 
     change activities:
       (1) Needs assessment and data gathering.--The State may use 
     funds to conduct a statewide needs assessment that may be 
     based on data in existence on the date on which the 
     assessment is initiated and may include information about the 
     number of individuals within the State who are receiving 
     long-term services and supports in unnecessarily segregated 
     settings, the nature and extent to which current programs 
     respond to the preferences of individuals with disabilities 
     to receive services in home and community-based settings as 
     well as in institutional settings, and the expected change in 
     demand for services provided in home and community settings 
     as well as institutional settings.
       (2) Institutional bias.--The State may use funds to 
     identify, develop, and implement strategies for modifying 
     policies, practices, and procedures that unnecessarily bias 
     the provision of long-term services and supports toward 
     institutional settings and away from home and community-based 
     settings, including policies, practices, and procedures 
     governing statewideness, comparability in amount, duration, 
     and scope of services, financial eligibility, individualized 
     functional assessments and screenings (including individual 
     and family involvement), and knowledge about service options.
       (3) Over medicalization of services.--The State may use 
     funds to identify, develop, and implement strategies for 
     modifying policies, practices, and procedures that 
     unnecessarily bias the provision of long-term services and 
     supports by health care professionals to the extent that 
     quality services and supports can be provided by other 
     qualified individuals, including policies, practices, and 
     procedures governing service authorization, case management, 
     and service coordination, service delivery options, quality 
     controls, and supervision and training.
       (4) Interagency coordination; single point of entry.--The 
     State may support activities to identify and coordinate 
     Federal and State policies, resources, and services, relating 
     to the provision of long-term services and supports, 
     including the convening of interagency work groups and the 
     entering into of interagency agreements that provide for a 
     single point of entry and the design and implementation of a 
     coordinated screening and assessment system for all persons 
     eligible for long-term services and supports.
       (5) Training and technical assistance.--The State may carry 
     out directly, or may provide support to a public or private 
     entity to carry out training and technical assistance 
     activities that are provided for individuals with 
     disabilities, and, as appropriate, their representatives, 
     attendants, and other personnel (including professionals, 
     paraprofessionals, volunteers, and other members of the 
     community).
       (6) Public awareness.--The State may support a public 
     awareness program that is designed to provide information 
     relating to the availability of choices available to 
     individuals with disabilities for receiving long-term 
     services and support in the most integrated setting 
     appropriate.
       (7) Downsizing of large institutions.--The State may use 
     funds to support the per capita increased fixed costs in 
     institutional settings directly related to the movement of 
     individuals with disabilities out of specific facilities and 
     into community-based settings.
       (8) Transitional costs.--The State may use funds to provide 
     transitional costs described in section 1935(a)(1)(D) of the 
     Social Security Act, as added by this Act.
       (9) Task force.--The State may use funds to support the 
     operation of the Consumer Task Force established under 
     subsection (d).
       (10) Demonstrations of new approaches.--The State may use 
     funds to conduct, on a time-limited basis, the demonstration 
     of new approaches to accomplishing the purposes described in 
     subsection (a).
       (11) Other activities.--The State may use funds for any 
     systems change activities that are not described in any of 
     the preceding paragraphs of this subsection and that are 
     necessary for developing, implementing, or evaluating the 
     comprehensive statewide system of long term services and 
     supports.
       (d) Consumer Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment and duties.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, each State shall establish a 
     Consumer Task Force (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Task Force'') to assist the State in the development, 
     implementation, and evaluation of real choice systems change 
     initiatives.
       (2) Appointment.--Members of the Task Force shall be 
     appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the State in 
     accordance with the requirements of paragraph (3), after the 
     solicitation of recommendations from representatives of 
     organizations representing a broad range of individuals with 
     disabilities and organizations interested in individuals with 
     disabilities.
       (3) Composition.--
       (A) In general.--The Task Force shall represent a broad 
     range of individuals with disabilities from diverse 
     backgrounds and shall include representatives from 
     Developmental Disabilities Councils, State Independent Living 
     Councils, Commissions on Aging, organizations that provide 
     services to individuals with disabilities and consumers of 
     long-term services and supports.
       (B) Individuals with disabilities.--A majority of the 
     members of the Task Force shall be individuals with 
     disabilities or the representatives of such individuals.
       (C) Limitation.--The Task Force shall not include employees 
     of any State agency providing services to individuals with 
     disabilities other than employees of agencies described in 
     the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.).
       (e) Availability of Funds.--
       (1) Funds allotted to states.--Funds allotted to a State 
     under a grant made under this section for a fiscal year shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (2) Funds not allotted to states.--Funds not allotted to 
     States in the fiscal year for which they are appropriated 
     shall remain available in succeeding fiscal years for 
     allotment by the Secretary using the allotment formula 
     established by the Secretary under subsection (b)(2).
       (f) Annual Report.--A State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall submit an annual report to the Secretary 
     on the use of funds provided under the grant. Each report 
     shall include the percentage increase in the number of 
     eligible individuals in the State who receive long-term 
     services and supports in the most integrated setting 
     appropriate, including through community attendant services 
     and supports and other community-based settings.
       (g) Appropriation.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated and there is appropriated to make grants under 
     this section for--
       (1) fiscal year 2001, $25,000,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. STATE OPTION FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1903(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396b(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(C), by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (5),'' after ``does not exceed'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) A State may waive the income, resources, and 
     deeming limitations described in paragraph (4)(C) in such 
     cases as the State finds the potential for employment 
     opportunities would be enhanced through the provision of 
     medical assistance for community attendant services and 
     supports in accordance with section 1935.
       ``(B) In the case of an individual who is eligible for 
     medical assistance described in subparagraph (A) only as a 
     result of the application of such subparagraph, the State 
     may, notwithstanding section 1916(b), impose a premium based 
     on a sliding scale related to income.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to medical assistance provided for community 
     attendant services and supports described in section 1935 of 
     the Social Security Act furnished on or after October 1, 
     2000.

     SEC. 6. STUDIES AND REPORTS.

       (a) Review of, and Report on, Regulations.--The National 
     Council on Disability established under title IV of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.) shall 
     review regulations in existence under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) on the date of 
     enactment of this Act insofar as such regulations regulate 
     the provision of home health services, personal care 
     services, and other services in home and community-based 
     settings and, not later than 1 year after such date, submit a 
     report to Congress on the results of such study, together 
     with any recommendations for legislation that the Council 
     determines to be appropriate as a result of the study.
       (b) Report on Reduced Title XIX Expenditures.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to 
     Congress a report on how expenditures under the medicaid 
     program under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396 et seq.) can be reduced by the furnishing of community 
     attendant services and supports in accordance with section 
     1935 of such Act (as added by section 3 of this Act).

     SEC. 7. TASK FORCE ON FINANCING OF LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish 
     a task force to examine appropriate methods for financing 
     long-term services and supports. The task force shall include 
     significant representation of individuals (and 
     representatives of individuals) who receive such services and 
     supports.
                                  ____

                                               National Council on


                                           Independent Living,

                                 Arlington, VA, November 15, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin, The National Council on Independent 
     Living (NCIL) applauds your leadership in introducing the 
     Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act 
     (MiCASSA).
       NCIL is the national membership organization for centers 
     for independent living and

[[Page 29731]]

     people with disabilities. Our membership includes individuals 
     and organizations from each of the 50 states. As a leading 
     national, cross-disability, grassroots organization run by 
     and for people with disabilities, NCIL has been instrumental 
     in efforts to advance the rights and opportunities for all 
     Americans with disabilities.
       The members of NCIL have wholeheartedly endorsed MiCASSA, 
     have selected its passage as one of our top priorities. We 
     join with our colleagues from ADAPT, who are leading the 
     national effort to pass MiCASSA. There is nothing more 
     important to our members than real choice for people with 
     disabilities. Passage of MiCASSA will create the critical 
     systems change needed for people with disabilities to enjoy 
     the freedom of real choice in services and supports. This 
     will allow people with disabilities to finally enjoy their 
     civil right to live in their own homes, free from isolation 
     and segregation in nursing homes and institutions.
       We thank you for your vision and for your willingness to 
     lead the effort to achieve freedom for our people. You can 
     count on NCIL to work alongside you as we give our finest 
     efforts towards passage of MiCASSA at the very beginning of 
     the new millennium.
           Sincerely Yours,
     Paul Spooner,
       President.
     Mike Oxford,
     Vice President and Chair, Personal Assistance Services Sub-
     Committee.
                                  ____

                                       The Association of Programs


                                 for Rural independent Living,

                                      Kent, OH, November 12, 1999.
     Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Senator, It is my understanding that the 
     Community Attendant Services and Support Act (MiCASA) is 
     about to be introduced by you, into Congress on Monday, 
     November 15, 1999. On behalf of the Governing Board of the 
     Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) 
     I want to wholeheartedly endorse your efforts to pass this 
     important piece of legislation.
       APRIL is a national network of over 150 members, primarily 
     rural centers for independent living (CILs), CIL satellite 
     offices and statewide independent living councils (SILCs), as 
     well as other related organizations and individuals concerned 
     about people with disabilities living and working in Rural 
     America. We are a nonprofit group, who for the past twelve 
     years, has continued to grow in both numbers and in our 
     efforts to bring to light the myriad of issues facing our 
     rural constituents. Our membership in turn, represents 
     thousands of consumers, many of whom still remain confined to 
     rooms in their homes, or in institutions due to lack of 
     community supports.
       MiCASA is a Bill that has been long in coming and APRIL has 
     joined with it's national colleagues throughout the years to 
     urge that such a consumer-directed, community-based model of 
     attendant services and support be implemented throughout the 
     United States. Let's hope that as the new millennium draws 
     near, that mandatory institutionalization will be 
     unnecessary, and that the long-standing bias toward these 
     institutions will have ended.
       As you well know, coming from the rural state of Iowa, 
     there are too many barriers for people with disabilities--
     from lack of transportation, housing, job opportunities, 
     personal attendants, financial resources, community access 
     and outdated, limiting attitudes. All these obstacles are 
     compounded in the isolation of rural America. The passage of 
     MiCASA would eliminate of one of the greatest barriers that 
     people face. Your record of supporting the rights of our 
     people, is solid. Our continued support of you and your 
     efforts is assured. Please let us know, as the legislation 
     begins it's journey towards passage, how we may help assure 
     it's success.
       As always, our thanks to ADAPT and the others who work so 
     steadfastly on our behalf.
                                                   Linda Gonzales,
     National Coordinator.
                                  ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America (PVA), I want to thank you for introducing ``The 
     Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act of 
     1999.'' This bill will allow qualified individuals with 
     disabilities the option of receiving long term services and 
     supports including personal assistant services in a home and 
     community based settings rather than in institutions.
       PVA has been a long time advocate for consumer-directed 
     personal assistant services (PAS). Attendants providing PAS 
     perform activities of daily living (ADLs) for people with 
     disabilities including feeding, bathing, toileting, dressing, 
     and transferring. With PAS, many PVA members and thousands of 
     people with disabilities across the country are able to live 
     independent and active lives at home or in a community 
     setting.
       Historically, long term services for people with 
     disabilities have been provided in nursing homes and in 
     institutional settings. However, your bill will provide funds 
     to States to support systems change initiatives that are 
     designed to assist each State in developing a comprehensive 
     consumer responsive state wide system of long term services 
     and supports that will provide real consumer choice and 
     direct in an integrated setting appropriate to the needs of 
     the individual.
       PVA has long recognized that disability is a natural part 
     of life. People with disabilities have the right to live 
     independently, enjoy self-determination, make independent 
     choices, contribute to society and enjoy full inclusion and 
     integration into the mainstream of American society. This 
     legislation will help advance this cause and PVA stands ready 
     and willing to work with you and your staff to ensure passage 
     of the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act 
     of 1999.
           Sincerely,
                                                John C. Bollinger,
     Deputy Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                      The Arc,

                                 Arlington, TX, November 16, 1999.
     Hon. Thomas Harkin,
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Specter: On behalf of The Arc of 
     the United States, I wish to express our strong support for 
     introducing the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and 
     Supports Act (MiCASSA). MiCASSA represents an important step 
     in reforming our long-term care policy by helping to reduce 
     the institutional bias in our long-term care services system. 
     By doing so, MiCASSA would help individuals with mental 
     retardation live quality lives in the community.
       Created over thirty years ago, our long-term care service 
     system is funded mainly by Medicare and Medicaid dollars. 
     Today, over 75 percent of Medicaid long-term care dollars are 
     spent on institutional services, leaving few dollars for 
     community-based services. A national long-term service policy 
     should not favor institutions over home and community-based 
     services. It should allow families and individuals real 
     choice regarding where and how services should be delivered.
       People with mental retardation want to live, work and play 
     in the community. MiCASSA would help keep families together 
     and would prevent people with mental retardation from being 
     unnecessarily institutionalized. Community services have also 
     shown on average to be less expensive than institutional 
     services.
       MiCASSA complements the 1999 Supreme Court decision in 
     Olmstead, by providing a way for states to meet their 
     obligations under the decision. It would also help reduce the 
     interminable waiting lists for community-based services and 
     supports.
       The Arc of the Untied States, the largest national 
     voluntary organization devoted solely to the welfare of 
     people with mental retardation and their families, stands 
     ready to assist you in any way to move this important piece 
     of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brenda Doss,
     President.
                                  ____



                                             Justin Dart, Jr.,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senator, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I know that the great majority of 54 
     million Americans with disabilities join me in congratulating 
     you and Senator Spector on introducing the Medicaid Community 
     Attendant Services and Supports Act of 1999.
       The passage of this law will be a landmark progress for 
     free-enterprise democracy. It will pave the way for 
     liberating hundreds of thousands of Americans from 
     institutions by providing the simple services they need to 
     live in their homes and participate in their communities.
       I urge every member of Congress to support this historic 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Justin Dart,
     Justice For All.
                                  ____

                                              National Spinal Cord


                                           Injury Association,

                             Silver Spring, MD, November 16, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The National Spinal Cord Injury 
     Association (NSCIA) joins our colleagues from the National 
     Council on Independent Living and ADAPT in thanking you for 
     your leadership in introducing the Medicaid Community 
     Attendant Services and Support Act (MiCASSA).
       This bill, when passed, will make a significant difference 
     in the lives of the 600,000 people with spinal cord injury 
     and disease in the United States, many of whom are currently 
     forced to choose institutional and nursing home services when 
     what they really need are personal assistance services. It 
     has been demonstrated repeatedly that community-based 
     services are better, more cost effective and preferred.
       We thank you for your support for people living with spinal 
     cord injury and disease and for your willingness to lead the 
     effort to

[[Page 29732]]

     offer real choices for people with disabilities. You can 
     count on NSCIA's support in the effort to pass MiCASSA.
           Sincerely Yours,
                                           Thomas H. Countee, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join 
Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, which I chair, in introducing the Medicaid Attendant Care 
Services and Supports Act of 1999. This creative proposal addresses a 
glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's 
most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities. I would also 
note that a similar version on this bill was included in the Health 
Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), which I introduced on January 19, 
1999.
  In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those 
with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for 
reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of 
institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such 
services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's 
age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available 
tell us that 5.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities 
under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not 
currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved 
benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given 
the preference of home and community-based care over institutional 
care.
  Under this proposal, States may apply for grants for assistance in 
implementing ``systems change'' initiatives, in order to eliminate the 
institutional bias in their current policies and for needs assessment 
activities. Further, if a state can show that the aggregate amounts of 
Federal expenditures on people living in the community exceeds what 
would have been spent on the same people had they been in nursing 
homes, the state can limit the program, perhaps by not letting any more 
people apply; no limiting mechanism is mandated under this bill. And 
finally, States would be required to maintain expenditures for 
attendant care services under other Medicaid community-based programs, 
thereby preventing the states from shifting patients into the new 
benefit proposed under this bill.
  Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so 
desperately needed. Only a few short months ago, the Supreme Court held 
in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) requires States, under some circumstances, to 
provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities 
rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several 
lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured 
Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations 
under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, 
arguing that the lack of Medicaid communty-based services options is 
discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually 
every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including 
ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.
  Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid 
program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important 
one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move 
ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to 
provide a starting point for debate. Mr. President, the time has come 
for concerted action in this arena.
  I urge the congressional leadership, including the appropriate 
committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, 
and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective 
of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their 
own communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith or Oregon):
  S. 1936. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or 
exchange all or part of certain administrative sites and other National 
Forest System land in the State of Oregon and use the proceeds derived 
from the sale or exchange for National Forest System purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               the bent pine nursery land conveyance act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that 
will allow the Forest Service to sell an abandoned facility to the city 
of Bend, OR, to be used for recreational purposes. The idea for this 
legislation came from the citizens of Bend themselves. They worked with 
Forest Service personnel in the adjacent Deschutes National Forest and 
crafted a win-win solution to different problems. What others might 
have seen as a problem, namely the shutdown of the Pine Nursery 
facility, they saw as an opportunity--the opportunity to provide a 
recreational complex for the community and to generate funding for 
needed facilities in the Deschutes Forest. This legislation would allow 
them to implement this creative idea.
  Faced with the inevitable sale, trade or development of the Forest 
Service's Bend Pine Nursery, which supplied seedlings for five decades 
of reforestation work, last spring I met with representatives from the 
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District; the city of Bend; the Bend 
School District; folks from the soccer and Little League baseball 
programs; and others who are concerned about central Oregon's youth and 
adults having adequate recreational facilities.
  What these folks asked me to do was very straightforward: if the 
Forest service is going to sell, exchange, or otherwise develop the 
former Bend Pine Nursery, the community wanted the opportunity to 
acquire the property for the development of a sports complex, playing 
fields and other facilities.
  My bill simply creates an opportunity for the Bend Metro Parks and 
Recreation District to work with the people of Bend on whether or not 
to purchase this property. It does not require purchase by the 
community, it simply gives the community a right of first refusal to 
buy the property at fair market value.
  At the same time, this legislation allows the Deschutes National 
Forest to address its need for a new administrative site. Currently, 
the Deschutes pays approximately $725,000 per year in annual lease and 
utility costs. This is \3/4\ of a million dollars that is not being 
spent on the ground, improving the quality of Deschutes National Forest 
facilities, lands and resources. It is a credit to the leadership of 
the Deschutes National Forest that they seek a way out from this 
unnecessary, unproductive and recurring expense.
  My bill will enable the Deschutes to use the money raised from the 
sale of the nursery and other surplus properties in Oregon toward the 
acquisition--and ownership--of a new administrative site. The cost of a 
new building is estimated to be about $7 million; as my colleagues can 
see, the forest is paying almost a million dollars in rent each year. 
In the words of an ad from today's ``Bend Bulletin'', and I quote: 
``Tired of throwing away thousands on rent? Think you can't buy? think 
again. If you're stuck in the renter rut, try it our way.''
  I look forward to a hearing next year on this bill in the Energy and 
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, 
of which I am ranking member. I welcome my colleague, Mr. Smith, as an 
original cosponsor of this innovative bill
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1936

       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 ``Bend Pine Nursery Land 
     Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

[[Page 29733]]

       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Oregon.

     SEC. 3. SALE OR EXCHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, sell or exchange 
     any or all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to the following National Forest System land and 
     improvements:
       (1) Bend Pine Nursery, comprising approximately 210 acres, 
     as depicted on site plan map entitled ``Bend Pine Nursery 
     Administrative Site'', dated May 13, 1999.
       (2) The Federal Government-owned facilities at Shelter Cove 
     Resort, as depicted on site plan map entitled ``Shelter Cove 
     Resort'', dated November 3, 1997.
       (3) Isolated parcels of National Forest System land located 
     in sec. 25, T. 20 S., R. 10 E., and secs. 16, 17, 20, and 21, 
     T. 20 S., R. 11 E., Willamette Meridian, as depicted on the 
     map entitled ``Isolated Parcels, Deschutes National Forest'', 
     dated 1988.
       (4) Alsea Administrative Site, consisting of approximately 
     24 acres, as depicted on site plan map entitled ``Alsea 
     Administrative Site'', dated May 14, 1999.
       (5) Mapleton Administrative Site, consisting of 
     approximately 8 acres, as depicted on site plan map entitled 
     ``Mapleton Administrative Site'', dated May 14, 1999.
       (6) Springdale Administrative Site, consisting of 
     approximately 3.6 acres, as depicted on site plan map 
     entitled ``Site Development Plan, Columbia Gorge Ranger 
     Station'', dated April 22, 1964.
       (7) Dale Administrative Site, consisting of approximately 
     40 acres, as depicted on site plan map entitled ``Dale 
     Administrative Site'', dated July 7, 1999.
       (b) Consideration.--Consideration for a sale or exchange of 
     land under subsection (a) may include the acquisition of 
     land, existing improvements, or improvements constructed to 
     the specifications of the Secretary.
       (c) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, any sale or exchange of National Forest System land 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to the laws (including 
     regulations) applicable to the conveyance and acquisition of 
     land for the National Forest System.
       (d) Cash Equalization.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment 
     in excess of 25 percent of the value of land exchanged under 
     subsection (a).
       (e) Solicitations of Offers.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     may solicit offers for sale or exchange of land under this 
     section on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       (2) Rejection of offers.--The Secretary may reject any 
     offer made under this section if the Secretary determines 
     that the offer is not adequate or not in the public interest.
       (3) Right of first refusal.--The Bend Metro Parks and 
     Recreation District or other units of local government in 
     Deschutes County, Oregon, shall be given the right of first 
     refusal to purchase the Bend Pine Nursery described in 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (f) Revocations.--
       (1) In general.--Any public land order withdrawing land 
     described in subsection (a) from all forms of appropriation 
     under the public land laws is revoked with respect to any 
     portion of the land conveyed by the Secretary under this 
     section.
       (2) Effective date.--The effective date of any revocation 
     under paragraph (1) shall be the date of the patent or deed 
     conveying the land.

     SEC. 4. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.

       (a) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the 
     proceeds of a sale or exchange under section 3(a) in the fund 
     established under Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a) 
     (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'').
       (b) Use of Proceeds.--Funds deposited under subsection (a) 
     shall be available to the Secretary, without further Act of 
     appropriation, for--
       (1) the acquisition, construction, or improvement of 
     administrative facilities and associated land in connection 
     with the Deschutes National Forest; and
       (2) to the extent the funds are not necessary to carry out 
     paragraph (1), the acquisition of land and interests in land 
     in the State.
       (c) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Secretary shall manage any land acquired by purchase or 
     exchange under this Act in accordance with the Act of March 
     1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.) (commonly known as the 
     ``Weeks Act'') and other laws (including regulations) 
     pertaining to the National Forest System.

     SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES.

       The Secretary may acquire, construct, or improve 
     administrative facilities and associated land in connection 
     with the Deschutes National Forest System by using--
       (1) funds made available under section 4(b); and
       (2) to the extent the funds are insufficient to carry out 
     the acquisition, construction, or improvement, funds 
     subsequently made available for the acquisition, 
     construction, or improvement.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________