[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 31081-31105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1975. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the tax on generation-skipping transfers to eliminate certain traps for 
the unwary and otherwise improve the fairness of such tax; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:


          The Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Amendments Act

  Mr. MACK: Mr. President, today Senator Breaux and I join in 
introducing legislation to correct serious problems in the allocation 
of generation-skipping transfer tax (GST) exemptions. This legislation 
would provide relief to taxpayers for missed allocations of the GST 
exemption and would make the exemption allocation automatic, in place 
of the current law requirement that the taxpayers take an affirmative 
step to claim the exemption. This proposed change was included in the 
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, but failed to become law due to 
the President's veto of that bill.
  Under this legislation, the GST exemption is automatically allocated 
to ``indirect skip'' transfers made while the donor is alive. An 
indirect skip is a transfer of property subject to the gift tax that is 
made to a GST trust. Direct skips (generally, transfers solely for the 
benefit of grandchildren) are already covered by an automatic 
allocation rule. An individual may elect not to have the automatic 
allocation rule apply to an indirect skip. Also, under this 
legislation, the GST exemption may be allocated retroactively when 
there is an unnatural order of death. If a lineal descendant of the 
transferor predeceased the transferor, then the transferor may allocate 
the unused GST exemption to any previous transfer or transfers to the 
trust on a chronological basis.
  This legislation also provides authorization and direction to the 
Treasury Secretary to grant extensions of time to make the election to 
allocate the GST exemption and to grant exceptions to the time 
requirement. If such relief is granted, then the value on the date of 
transfer to the trust would be used for determining GST exemption 
allocation.
  Mr. President, this is important legislation which deserves enactment 
at the earliest possible date. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1975

       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 ``Generation-Skipping Transfer 
     Tax Amendments Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEEMED ALLOCATION OF GST EXEMPTION TO LIFETIME 
                   TRANSFERS TO TRUSTS; RETROACTIVE ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2632 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to special rules for allocation of GST 
     exemption) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as 
     subsection (e) and by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(c) Deemed Allocation to Certain Lifetime Transfers to 
     GST Trusts.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any individual makes an indirect skip 
     during such individual's lifetime, any unused portion of such 
     individual's GST exemption shall be allocated to the property 
     transferred to the extent necessary to make the inclusion 
     ratio for such property zero. If the amount of the indirect 
     skip exceeds such unused portion, the entire unused portion 
     shall be allocated to the property transferred.
       ``(2) Unused portion.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     unused portion of an individual's GST exemption is that 
     portion of such exemption which has not previously been--
       ``(A) allocated by such individual,
       ``(B) treated as allocated under subsection (b) with 
     respect to a direct skip occurring during or before the 
     calendar year in which the indirect skip is made, or
       ``(C) treated as allocated under paragraph (1) with respect 
     to a prior indirect skip.
       ``(3) Definitions.--
       ``(A) Indirect skip.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `indirect skip' means any transfer of property subject 
     to the tax imposed by chapter 12 made to a GST trust.
       ``(B) GST trust.--The term `GST trust' means a trust that 
     could have a generation-skipping transfer with respect to the 
     transferor unless--
       ``(i) the trust instrument provides that more than 25 
     percent of the trust corpus must be distributed to or may be 
     withdrawn by 1 or more individuals who are non-skip persons--

       ``(I) before the date that the individual attains age 46,
       ``(II) on or before 1 or more dates specified in the trust 
     instrument that will occur before the date that such 
     individual attains age 46, or
       ``(III) upon the occurrence of an event that, in accordance 
     with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, may reasonably 
     be expected to occur before the date that such individual 
     attains age 46;

[[Page 31082]]

       ``(ii) the trust instrument provides that more than 25 
     percent of the trust corpus must be distributed to or may be 
     withdrawn by 1 or more individuals who are non-skip persons 
     and who are living on the date of death of another person 
     identified in the instrument (by name or by class) who is 
     more than 10 years older than such individuals;
       ``(iii) the trust instrument provides that, if 1 or more 
     individuals who are non-skip persons die on or before a date 
     or event described in clause (i) or (ii), more than 25 
     percent of the trust corpus either must be distributed to the 
     estate or estates of 1 or more of such individuals or is 
     subject to a general power of appointment exercisable by 1 or 
     more of such individuals;
       ``(iv) the trust is a trust any portion of which would be 
     included in the gross estate of a non-skip person (other than 
     the transferor) if such person died immediately after the 
     transfer;
       ``(v) the trust is a charitable lead annuity trust (within 
     the meaning of section 2642(e)(3)(A)) or a charitable 
     remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust 
     (within the meaning of section 664(d)); or
       ``(vi) the trust is a trust with respect to which a 
     deduction was allowed under section 2522 for the amount of an 
     interest in the form of the right to receive annual payments 
     of a fixed percentage of the net fair market value of the 
     trust property (determined yearly) and which is required to 
     pay principal to a non-skip person if such person is alive 
     when the yearly payments for which the deduction was allowed 
     terminate.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the value of transferred 
     property shall not be considered to be includible in the 
     gross estate of a non-skip person or subject to a right of 
     withdrawal by reason of such person holding a right to 
     withdraw so much of such property as does not exceed the 
     amount referred to in section 2503(b) with respect to any 
     transferor, and it shall be assumed that powers of 
     appointment held by non-skip persons will not be exercised.
       ``(4) Automatic allocations to certain gst trusts.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, an indirect skip to which 
     section 2642(f) applies shall be deemed to have been made 
     only at the close of the estate tax inclusion period. The 
     fair market value of such transfer shall be the fair market 
     value of the trust property at the close of the estate tax 
     inclusion period.
       ``(5) Applicability and effect.--
       ``(A) In general.--An individual--
       ``(i) may elect to have this subsection not apply to--

       ``(I) an indirect skip, or
       ``(II) any or all transfers made by such individual to a 
     particular trust, and

       ``(ii) may elect to treat any trust as a GST trust for 
     purposes of this subsection with respect to any or all 
     transfers made by such individual to such trust.
       ``(B) Elections.--
       ``(i) Elections with respect to indirect skips.--An 
     election under subparagraph (A)(i)(I) shall be deemed to be 
     timely if filed on a timely filed gift tax return for the 
     calendar year in which the transfer was made or deemed to 
     have been made pursuant to paragraph (4) or on such later 
     date or dates as may be prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Other elections.--An election under clause (i)(II) 
     or (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be made on a timely filed 
     gift tax return for the calendar year for which the election 
     is to become effective.
       ``(d) Retroactive Allocations.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) a non-skip person has an interest or a future 
     interest in a trust to which any transfer has been made,
       ``(B) such person--
       ``(i) is a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the 
     transferor or of a grandparent of the transferor's spouse or 
     former spouse, and
       ``(ii) is assigned to a generation below the generation 
     assignment of the transferor, and
       ``(C) such person predeceases the transferor,
     then the transferor may make an allocation of any of such 
     transferor's unused GST exemption to any previous transfer or 
     transfers to the trust on a chronological basis.
       ``(2) Special rules.--If the allocation under paragraph (1) 
     by the transferor is made on a gift tax return filed on or 
     before the date prescribed by section 6075(b) for gifts made 
     within the calendar year within which the non-skip person's 
     death occurred--
       ``(A) the value of such transfer or transfers for purposes 
     of section 2642(a) shall be determined as if such allocation 
     had been made on a timely filed gift tax return for each 
     calendar year within which each transfer was made,
       ``(B) such allocation shall be effective immediately before 
     such death, and
       ``(C) the amount of the transferor's unused GST exemption 
     available to be allocated shall be determined immediately 
     before such death.
       ``(3) Future interest.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     person has a future interest in a trust if the trust may 
     permit income or corpus to be paid to such person on a date 
     or dates in the future.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 2632(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``with respect to a 
     direct skip'' and inserting ``or subsection (c)(1)''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Deemed allocation.--Section 2632(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)), and the 
     amendment made by subsection (b), shall apply to transfers 
     subject to chapter 11 or 12 of such Code made after December 
     31, 1999, and to estate tax inclusion periods ending after 
     December 31, 1999.
       (2) Retroactive allocations.--Section 2632(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)) 
     shall apply to deaths of non-skip persons occurring after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. SEVERING OF TRUSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2642 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to inclusion ratio) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Severing of trusts.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a trust is severed in a qualified 
     severance, the trusts resulting from such severance shall be 
     treated as separate trusts thereafter for purposes of this 
     chapter.
       ``(B) Qualified severance.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified severance' means the 
     division of a single trust and the creation (by any means 
     available under the governing instrument or under local law) 
     of 2 or more trusts if--

       ``(I) the single trust was divided on a fractional basis, 
     and
       ``(II) the terms of the new trusts, in the aggregate, 
     provide for the same succession of interests of beneficiaries 
     as are provided in the original trust.

       ``(ii) Trusts with inclusion ratio greater than zero.--If a 
     trust has an inclusion ratio of greater than zero and less 
     than 1, a severance is a qualified severance only if the 
     single trust is divided into 2 trusts, one of which receives 
     a fractional share of the total value of all trust assets 
     equal to the applicable fraction of the single trust 
     immediately before the severance. In such case, the trust 
     receiving such fractional share shall have an inclusion ratio 
     of zero and the other trust shall have an inclusion ratio of 
     1.
       ``(iii) Regulations.--The term `qualified severance' 
     includes any other severance permitted under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Timing and manner of severances.--A severance 
     pursuant to this paragraph may be made at any time. The 
     Secretary shall prescribe by forms or regulations the manner 
     in which the qualified severance shall be reported to the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to severances after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN VALUATION RULES.

       (a) Gifts for Which Gift Tax Return Filed or Deemed 
     Allocation Made.--Paragraph (1) of section 2642(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to valuation rules, 
     etc.) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Gifts for which gift tax return filed or deemed 
     allocation made.--If the allocation of the GST exemption to 
     any transfers of property is made on a gift tax return filed 
     on or before the date prescribed by section 6075(b) for such 
     transfer or is deemed to be made under section 2632 (b)(1) or 
     (c)(1)--
       ``(A) the value of such property for purposes of subsection 
     (a) shall be its value as finally determined for purposes of 
     chapter 12 (within the meaning of section 2001(f)(2)), or, in 
     the case of an allocation deemed to have been made at the 
     close of an estate tax inclusion period, its value at the 
     time of the close of the estate tax inclusion period, and
       ``(B) such allocation shall be effective on and after the 
     date of such transfer, or, in the case of an allocation 
     deemed to have been made at the close of an estate tax 
     inclusion period, on and after the close of such estate tax 
     inclusion period.''.
       (b) Transfers at Death.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     2642(b)(2) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Transfers at death.--If property is transferred as a 
     result of the death of the transferor, the value of such 
     property for purposes of subsection (a) shall be its value as 
     finally determined for purposes of chapter 11; except that, 
     if the requirements prescribed by the Secretary respecting 
     allocation of post-death changes in value are not met, the 
     value of such property shall be determined as of the time of 
     the distribution concerned.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 1431 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

     SEC. 5. RELIEF PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2642 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Relief Provisions.--
       ``(1) Relief for late elections.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     prescribe such circumstances and procedures under which 
     extensions of time will be granted to make--
       ``(i) an allocation of GST exemption described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (b), and
       ``(ii) an election under subsection (b)(3) or (c)(5) of 
     section 2632.
     Such regulations shall include procedures for requesting 
     comparable relief with respect to

[[Page 31083]]

     transfers made before the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Basis for determinations.--In determining whether to 
     grant relief under this paragraph, the Secretary shall take 
     into account all relevant circumstances, including evidence 
     of intent contained in the trust instrument or instrument of 
     transfer and such other factors as the Secretary deems 
     relevant. For purposes of determining whether to grant relief 
     under this paragraph, the time for making the allocation (or 
     election) shall be treated as if not expressly prescribed by 
     statute.
       ``(2) Substantial compliance.--An allocation of GST 
     exemption under section 2632 that demonstrates an intent to 
     have a zero inclusion ratio with respect to a transfer or a 
     trust shall be deemed to be an allocation of so much of the 
     transferor's unused GST exemption as produces, to the extent 
     possible, a zero inclusion ratio. In determining whether 
     there has been substantial compliance, all relevant 
     circumstances shall be taken into account, including evidence 
     of intent contained in the trust instrument or instrument of 
     transfer and such other factors as the Secretary deems 
     relevant.''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Relief for late elections.--Section 2642(g)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)) 
     shall apply to requests pending on, or filed after, the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Substantial compliance.--Section 2642(g)(2) of such 
     Code (as so added) shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to allocations made 
     prior to such date for purposes of determining the tax 
     consequences of generation-skipping transfers with respect to 
     which the period of time for filing claims for refund has not 
     expired. No negative implication is intended with respect to 
     the availability of relief for late elections or the 
     application of a rule of substantial compliance prior to the 
     enactment of this amendment.

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
from the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mack, in introducing 
legislation designated to address past problems with the allocation of 
the generation-skipping transfer (GST) exemption, and to provide for 
automatic allocations going forward.
  Under current law, taxpayers must make affirmative allocations of the 
GST exemption for transfers to a trust. As a result, many taxpayers 
have not made timely allocations and face the prospect of losing a 
significant portion of the exemption's benefit. This legislation is 
designed to assure that taxpayers get the full benefit of the law by 
making GST exemption allocations automatic for transfers to a trust and 
to give taxpayers the opportunity to cure past allocations which were 
not made on a timely basis.
  This legislation was included in the tax bill that was sent to the 
President earlier this summer. It enjoys Republican and Democratic 
support on both sides of the hill. I urge its inclusion in the next tax 
bill sent to the White House.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
        Abraham):
  S. 1977. A bill to review, reform, and terminate unnecessary and 
inequitable Federal subsidies; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


            corporate subsidy reform commission act of 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to establish a process to eliminate and reform federal 
subsidies and tax advantages received by corporations. This bill, ``The 
Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act'' is identical to a bill that 
was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in May, 
1997. I am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Thompson, Lieberman, 
and Abraham.
  I would like to briefly describe the major provisions of the 
Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act. It defines inequitable 
subsidies as those provided to corporations without a reasonable 
expectation that they will return a commensurate benefit to the public.
  The Act excludes any subsidies that are primarily for research and 
development, education, public health, safety, or the environment. Also 
excluded are subsidies or tax advantages necessary to comply with 
international trade or treaty obligations.
  The Act would create a nine-member commission nominated by the 
President and the Congressional leadership. Federal agencies would be 
required to submit to the Commission, at the time of the 
Administration's next budget, a list of subsidies and tax advantages 
that it believes are inequitable. The Commission will provide 
recommendations to either terminate or reduce the corporate subsidies. 
The President has the authority under the Act to either terminate the 
process, or submit the Commission's recommendations to the Congress as 
a legislative initiative.
  The Congress would then have four months to review the Commission's 
recommendations which have been endorsed by the President. At that 
time, the actions of all involved committees in each respective body 
would be sent to the floor for debate, under expedited procedures.
  Many federal subsidies and special-interest tax breaks for 
corporations are unnecessary, and do not provide a fair return to the 
taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of their cost. If a corporation is 
receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies or tax breaks that are unsupported 
by a compelling benefit to the public, the subsidy should be ended.
  Our nation is just now beginning to pay down a national debt of over 
$5 trillion. Every American shoulders an unconscionable amount of 
debt--somewhere in the range of $19,000 each--not due to any profligate 
spending of their own, but because of the fiscal irresponsibility of 
their elected officials in Congress. The citizens who expect leadership 
and accountability from their representatives have gotten special 
interest pandering in return. This is devastating to our nation's 
fiscal stability, and crippling to the ability of the Congress to 
respond to truly urgent social needs such as health care, education, 
and national security.
  Let me note a couple of estimates of this scope of unjustified 
federal subsidies to corporations that illustrates how expensive this 
burden is. When I first introduced this legislation, the CATO Institute 
had identified 125 federal programs that provided over $85 billion in 
industry subsidies. The Progressive Policy Institute identified an 
additional $30 billion in tax loopholes for major industries.
  Unfortunately, the pervasive system of pork-barreling and special 
interest legislating is speeding along unabated in Washington. Instead 
of pursuing our nation's priorities in a bipartisan manner, both 
parties continue to legislate, posture, and spend for partisan 
advantage. I have worked hard during my service in the Senate to 
eliminate wasteful earmarks in appropriations bills. Yet this year 
alone, more than $13 billion in pork barrel spending was approved by 
the Senate. I was also dismayed at the inclusion of numerous special-
interest tax breaks contained in the comprehensive tax bill passed by 
the Congress this year, then vetoed.
  Mr. President, I want to state openly that I would strongly prefer to 
eliminate corporate subsidies and inequitable tax subsidies without 
resorting to a commission. I would rather have every committee in the 
House and Senate open the next session of Congress by expeditiously 
examining their areas of jurisdiction for unwarranted corporate pork. 
Then, each respective body could engage in a full and thorough debate 
on the merits of each subsidy, and vote on their termination or 
modification. However, I regret that approach is unlikely to occur, 
because of the difficulty in resisting the requests of the special 
interests. The bill I am introducing today represents a practical 
approach to establishing not only a credible process to identify 
corporate pork, but to then take the important next step of achieving 
real reductions on behalf of over-taxed constituents.
  I look forward to this bill being brought before the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee early next year. To ensure that the 
Senate Committee on Finance has an opportunity to evaluate any tax 
policy modifications contained in this Act, I have agreed to a 
sequential referral consent request with the leadership of those two 
committees. I am hopeful that this bill represents the beginning of a 
serious and productive process to alleviate the public burden of 
unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax breaks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:

[[Page 31084]]

  S. 1978. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, metropolitan area; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


               albuquerque national cemetery legislation

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and honor that 
I rise today to introduce a bill to create a National Veterans Cemetery 
in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces 
have made immeasurable sacrifices for the principles of freedom and 
liberty that make this Nation unique throughout civilization. The 
service of veterans has been vital to the history of the Nation, and 
the sacrifices made by veterans and their families should not be 
forgotten.
  These veterans at the very least deserve every opportunity to be 
buried at a National Cemetery with their fellow comrades. However, the 
Santa Fe National Cemetery, which serves the Northern two thirds of New 
Mexico, is rapidly approaching maximum capacity.
  Unfortunately, even though the Senate has already passed my 
legislation to extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery 
by authorizing the use of flat grave markers the life of the Cemetery 
will only be extended to 2008. Consequently, I would submit that it is 
not too soon to being planning or the day when Santa Fe will no longer 
be available.
  Before I continue, I would like to take a moment to talk about the 
Santa Fe National Cemetery. I believe all New Mexicans can be proud of 
the Santa Fe National Cemetery that has grown from 39/100 of an acre to 
its current 77 acres.
  The cemetery first opened in 1868 and within several years was 
designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Men and women who have 
fought in all of nation's wars hold an honored spot within the hallowed 
ground of the cemetery.
  With that said, I believe now is the right time to begin looking for 
another suitable site to serve as the last resting place for those New 
Mexico veterans who gave of themselves to protect the American ideals 
of liberty and freedom. The need to begin planning becomes even more 
pressing by virtue of the fact that more than half of New Mexico's 
180,000 veterans live in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area and internments 
are expected to peak in 2008.
  Consequently, I am introducing legislation today to create a National 
Veterans Cemetery in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I also want to compliment 
Congresswoman Heather Wilson who offered this far-sighted legislation 
in the House of Representatives last week with the knowledge that there 
is only a finite amount of space available over the long term at the 
existing national cemetery in Santa Fe.
  The Bill simply directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery in the Albuquerque metropolitan area and 
to submit a report to Congress setting forth a schedule for 
establishing the cemetery.
  Mr. President, in conclusion 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:

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY.

       (A) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish, in accordance with chapter 124 of title 38, United 
     States Code, a national cemetery in the Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico, metropolitan area to serve the needs of veterans and 
     their families.
       (b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that sets forth a schedule for the establishment of 
     the national cemetery under subsection (a) and an estimate of 
     the costs associated with the establishment of the national 
     cemetery.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 1979. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide that 
restrictions on application of State laws to pension benefits shall not 
apply to State laws prohibiting individuals from benefitting from 
crimes involving the death of pension plan participants; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                         THE SLAYER STATUTE ACT

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address an oversight in 
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) brought to my 
attention by a constituent of mine in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
  On October 14, 1997, Betty Rambel disappeared. Two days later, the 
burnt-out shell of her car was found. Inside the trunk was an 
unrecognizable body. On October 24, 1997, using dental records, the 
body was identified as Betty. That day, her husband, Steve, was 
arrested for her murder.
  Steve Rambel's trial took place in November of 1998, roughly a year 
ago. After a week-long trial the jury found him guilty of murder in the 
second degree, assault with a deadly weapon, and arson. Steve was 
sentenced to life in prison on March 5, 1999.
  Even once is too often, yet this sort of situation occurs more 
frequently than that: people are killed by people they trust. We read 
the headlines, are bombarded with the lurid details, and our thoughts 
move to other matters when the killer is convicted and sentenced. 
However, for the other victims of these crimes--the family and friends 
of the victim--the nightmare drags on. In the midst of the shock, the 
anger, the inconsolable sorrow of their loss, these victims have to 
pick up the pieces of their lives and go through the business of 
getting back on their feet. I rise today to speak about the 
``business'' of moving on.
  With her sister gone and her brother-in-law in jail, Phyllis Marden 
assumed responsibility for the care of her minor niece and nephew. In 
the midst of settling her deceased sister's estate, Phyllis was 
notified that she was named as the second beneficiary to Betty's 
pension benefits. When coming to agreement with her sister's employer 
on the award of benefits, Ms. Marden was upset to find that, although 
it is prohibited by state law, under ERISA her sister's killer can lay 
future claim to her pension benefits. Justifiably disturbed by this 
oversight in federal law, Phyllis contacted my office.
  ERISA preempts state laws that govern the award of pension benefits, 
even clear-cut rulings like those made against Steven Ramble. To 
correct this situation and others like it, we have drafted a bill which 
would waive the ERISA preemption in cases where a state's ``slayer 
statute'' applies to the application of benefits. This bill simply 
provides that individuals will not have access to ERISA benefits as a 
result of crimes they commit causing the death of pension plan 
participants. While many insurance plans already have language to this 
effect, ERISA does not. The aim of the bill is to codify the direction 
of the court in recent decisions of this issue and the Internal Revenue 
Service decision made on this matter in February 24, 1999, private 
letter ruling.
  While no one thinks that killers should benefit from their victims' 
pension plans, some suggest that waiving the ERISA preemption in these 
cases might start us down a ``slippery slope,'' where we begin waiving 
the ERISA preemption to support and enforce social policy. They would 
prefer to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis. I understand 
this line of reasoning; however, I strenuously disagree. I side with 
the Phyllis Mardens of America.
  Individuals subjected to these tragic, uncommon circumstances have 
been through enough both emotionally and financially; they should not 
be responsible for added legal costs on a clear-cut issue. At a time 
like this, they should not be expected to realize that they need a 
lawyer familiar with the intricacies of ERISA.
  I have alluded to the fact that not all lawyers are familiar with the 
available legal remedies to these problems; ERISA is notoriously 
complex. A bright line should be drawn that--without affecting the 
ERISA preemption on the whole--allows survivors of this specific sort 
of crime relief from further

[[Page 31085]]

emotional and financial hardship at the hands of the perpetrator. I 
feel that this bill makes that sort of clear distinction.
  A day does not pass that Betty is not on Phyllis's mind. Phyllis 
understands that this bill will not affect her situation--she is 
already paying her legal bills. However, she knows that someone else 
will have to go through the legal process she has been through. This 
bill will remove an obstacle from their path and get them on their way 
home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, and 
        Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1980. A bill to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to 
ensure improved access to the signals of local television stations by 
multichannel video providers to all households which desire such 
service in unserved and underserved rural areas by December 31, 2006; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


   21st century rural utility service rural development enhancement 
                     through local information act

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with Senators Harkin, 
Daschle, Kerrey, Durbin, Johnson, Wellstone, Conrad, Rockefeller, 
Bryan, Reid, Leahy, Wyden, and Murray, I am pleased to introduce a bill 
today on behalf of our country's rural satellite consumers. This is a 
bill to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, appropriately 
entitled, ``the 21st Century Rural Utility Service Rural Development 
Enhancement Through Local Information Act.''
  We all know that modern technology has made it possible to broadcast 
TV programming directly from satellites. Nationwide, over 11 million 
households subscribe to satellite TV, and that number increases by over 
2 million households a year.
  Rural areas have come to depend on the network coverage that 
satellites provide. In Montana, where over 35 percent of homes depend 
on satellite broadcasting for their TV reception, this development has 
been a real boon.
  While satellite broadcasting has improved the quality of life for 
folks in rural America, it hasn't been perfect. Satellite systems 
haven't been able to carry local broadcast stations. So local viewers 
haven't always been able to get local broadcasting.
  And this is not just a problem for satellite subscribers. It's a 
problem for the local TV broadcasters and for the fabric of local 
communities. Local broadcasters play a key role in our communities.
  They provide local news, local weather, and public service programs. 
Viewers depend on these broadcasts to find out about what's going on in 
their community. When the school board, PTA, and city council are 
meeting. Or when there's a parade or a fund-raiser for their church or 
civic groups.
  Local broadcasters are vital to our local economies. They provide 
jobs, and they allow local businesses to grow through advertising. In 
short, the importance of local broadcasting is evident in all parts of 
community life.
  And they also provide network programming: NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX. 
Nineteen of the twenty TV stations in Montana are affiliated with one 
of these networks, or with the Public Broadcasting System.
  These stations air national news, sports and entertainment at times 
of the day when people with jobs and kids can watch.
  Without these local broadcasts, you might miss the evening network 
news because it comes on before you get home from work, or because it 
airs late at night. People want local network coverage because it works 
in their lives.
  Until now, technology has not provided for rebroadcast of local 
signals by satellites. Many rural residents haven't been able to get 
decent reception over the air.
  Of course, we in the Senate cannot change technology or geography. 
What we can do is change the law. We can make local into local 
broadcasting a reality, and we should.
  Last spring, we passed H.R. 1554. At the time, we neglected an 
important responsibility. The language we passed would have required 
the turn-off of network programming to many rural satellite viewers.
  It would have done nothing to help the many local broadcasts in 
smaller cities and towns. A big oversight.
  Following the vote, I wrote a letter to the conference asking that it 
pay attention to the needs of the many viewers, communities, businesses 
and stations that had been ignored. Twenty-three of my colleagues, from 
both sides of the aisle, signed the letter.
  As you know, Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the omnibus 
appropriations bill, and the Senate is slated to take the same vote 
this evening. Mr. President, I was very disheartened when I learned 
that the ever important loan guarantee provision was pulled out of the 
Conference Report on the Satellite bill at the last minute. That is why 
I'm introducing this bill today, because this loan guarantee will help 
America's 11 million rural satellite consumers. It's time for us as 
lawmakers to say ``we care about those folks up in 2 Dot that simply 
want to watch local news.'' This is our chance to expand rural access 
so that no matter how large or small your town is, you're going to be 
able to enjoy the benefits of Satellite TV.
  This bill includes a loan guarantee that will make it possible for 
all local stations to be broadcast on satellite. Not just those in the 
very largest cities and towns. Without this, the other ``local into 
local'' provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act are an empty 
promise to the rural and small town Americans who depend on satellites.
  Mr. President, I look forward to holding hearings on this bill during 
our adjournment and coming back to see a swift resolution to this issue 
in January. It is time, no, it's overtime, for us to act on this 
important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 1981. A bill to amend title XI of the Public Health Service Act to 
provide for the use of new genetic technologies to meet the health care 
needs of the public; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                genetics and public health services act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, advances in biomedical science and 
technology in this century have given us many tools to improve our 
understanding of the causes of disease, and to develop better 
strategies to prevent and treat human illness. The recent explosion of 
knowledge in genetics offers us the newest and most powerful weapons in 
the war against disease and suffering.
  The legislation I am introducing, the Genetics and Public Health 
Services Act, will increase the federal, state and local public health 
resources needed to translate genetic information and technology into 
strategies to improve public health.
  Our national investment in science, and in particular in the National 
Institutes of Health, is reaping important dividends for the entire 
country. As a result of the Human Genome Project and other public and 
private sector research, we soon may have access to the entire human 
genetic code. From work accomplished so far, scientists have begun to 
develop a greater understanding of how genes contribute to the 
development of common diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, 
depression, heart disease and many other illnesses. Genetic information 
and technology have enormous potential for improving our efforts to 
promote health and combat disease.
  Based on current understanding of genes and human disease, we know 
that at least 65 percent of Americans have or will have a health 
problem for which there is a clear genetic contribution. Some have 
rare, but serious, conditions--such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell 
disease or phenylketonuria. Many more have common disorders--asthma, 
diabetes, cancer, heart disease, stroke and depression--in which 
genetic predisposition plays an important role.
  Genetic information can help us to understand and identify those at 
risk

[[Page 31086]]

for serious diseases and conditions, and help doctors monitor their 
health in order to diagnose and treat the diseases before they cause 
irreversible injury or death.
  Advancing our understand of genetics will revolutionize the treatment 
of disease. For example, understanding the genetic factors that 
contribute to Alzheimer's disease will help us to understand why some 
patients seem to respond to a new treatment, while others do not. 
Genetic information may soon be able to predict the types of 
individuals who have intolerable side effects from certain therapies. 
Doctors will be able to use genetic information to choose safer and 
more effective treatments that are tailored to each individual.
  Medical scientists are now beginning to think about genetic-based 
strategies to prevent illness, too. Understanding how genes contribute 
to the development of disease will give us new ways to intervene before 
disease develops. We will be able to use new therapies to prevent 
stroke, heart disease and many other conditions that cause disability 
and premature death.
  We have an unprecedented opportunity to use the expanding knowledge 
in genetics to improve health care. Scientific discoveries based on 
genetic information will change the face of health care in the future. 
But we lack the resources and systems needed today to translate that 
information into effective steps to diagnose, treat, and ultimately 
prevented disease.
  In order to realize the potential benefits of genetic information and 
technology, we must invest the resources needed to translate this 
knowledge into practical approaches to health care. We must do this 
quickly, to keep pace with the explosion of knowledge coming from 
public and private sector scientists.
  This legislation accomplishes these goals by creating two new grant 
programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. The first 
provides grants to states to develop and maintain ways to safely and 
effectively use genetic information in their state and local public 
health programs. The second grant program focuses on the translation of 
new genetic information and technologies to practical public health 
strategies that can be used in public and private health care.
  The grant program for states will support methods to incorporate 
genetics at every level of state and local public health systems. Each 
state and territory has a unique population and a unique public health 
program. This proposal provides states with the support and flexibility 
to design approaches tailored to their specific needs and existing 
resources. States may use funds to establish and maintain essential 
resources, such as information systems, service programs, and other 
fundamental elements. States will be required to monitor, evaluate and 
report on the impact of programs and systems funded by the Act.
  Responsible use of genetic information must be based on scientific 
data. The second grant program created by this legislation addresses 
the need for ongoing development and evaluation of public health 
strategies that use genetic information and technology. The bill 
creates a demonstration program for public and private non-profit 
organizations to test innovative approaches for using genetic 
information to improve people's health, and to evaluate the suitability 
of such approaches for incorporation into state and local public health 
programs.
  Broad input from all parties is a key ingredient for successful and 
safe use of genetic information to improve public health. Individuals 
must not be coerced to participate in genetic testing. It is important 
to involve the public in local, state and federal decisions about how 
to use genetic information in developing public health policy.
  Evidence suggests that many people are afraid to take advantage of 
available genetic tests because they fear discrimination in the 
workplace or in the health insurance market. Until we pass legislation 
to stop such discrimination, those fears are grounded in reality. We 
know that steps can be taken to protect the confidentiality of genetic 
information and to better educate the public about the issues 
surrounding genetic testing. This legislation requires each state to 
show how it plans to involve the public in the design and 
implementation of its proposal. The legislation also establishes a 
federal advisory committee to assist the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services in the implementation and oversight of programs under this 
Act.
  Public participation is essential. Our system has failed if we offer 
population-wide testing for predisposition to stroke, but fail to 
educate individuals who must decide whether to be tested. Our system 
has failed if we implement population-wide testing for predisposition 
to breast cancer, but fail to provide access to the care that is needed 
to reduce the risk of developing disease.
  Effective integration of genetics into public health systems must 
build on current efforts of the private and the public sector, 
including the work of many federal agencies. These include the 
achievements of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of 
Health, the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of certain aspects 
of genetic testing, the ongoing work of the Secretary's Advisory 
Committee on Genetic Testing, and the contributions of the project on 
the Ethical Legal and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project 
at the Department of Energy. Our new Federal commitment to safe and 
effective use of new genetic information and technology in the public 
health system will also draw significantly upon the expertise of the 
Health Resources and Services Administration. Translating genetic 
information and technology into practice will benefit as well from the 
expertise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in disease 
surveillance and in developing and testing new public health 
strategies.
  This legislation emphasizes the need to educate both health care 
providers and the general public. It also provides the structure and 
resources to include genetics in all aspects of public health--from the 
development of policy to the delivery of services. We must ensure that 
our entire public health system is ready and able to respond to the 
challenge of using genetic information for improving health.
  The Genetics and Public Health Services Act is supported by leading 
public health and genetics organizations, including the American Public 
Health Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the 
National, Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American Society of 
Human Genetics. The Alliance of Genetic Support Groups--representing 
those who live with genetic diseases--has written eloquently about the 
need to improve the resources dedicated to integrating genetics into 
public health. I am confident this support will grow in the coming 
months.
  Genetics research has brought us to an era of limitless possibility. 
The 21st century will be the century of life sciences. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in this effort to take advantage of this 
unprecedented opportunity to improve America's health. I ask unanimous 
consent that a summary of the bill and letters of support be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              The Genetics and Public Health Services Act

       Amends the Public Health Service Act to (1) establish, 
     expand and maintain resources and expertise needed for safe 
     and effective use of genetic information and technology in 
     state and local public health programs and (2) support 
     essential applied research and systems development to 
     translate new and emerging genetic information into practical 
     public health strategies.


       block grants, applied research and demonstration projects

       Creates a new federal-state matching block grant program to 
     (1) develop systems that promote access to quality genetic 
     services regardless of race, ethnicity, and ability to pay; 
     (2) establish, maintain, or supervise programs to reduce the 
     mortality and morbidity for heritable disorders in the 
     population of the state; (3) identify and develop a network 
     of experts within state and county health agencies to assess 
     the need for and assure the referral to or provision of 
     quality genetic services; (4) promote understanding among

[[Page 31087]]

     the public and health care professionals of genetic 
     disorders; and (5) provide a mechanism for public input on 
     state-designed genetic policies and programs.
       Establishes new authority to develop and evaluate 
     strategies to use emerging genetic information and technology 
     to improve the public health.
     Application requirements and procedures
       Block grants: In general, individual states will apply for 
     and receive the block grants; however, two or more states may 
     submit a joint multi-state application.
       Applied research/demonstration projects: Eligible entities 
     are states and public or private non-profit organizations, 
     which may partner with other entities in the private sector.


                   establishes an advisory committee

       Members include representatives from other appropriate 
     federal agencies, the clinical genetics community, research 
     community, private sector, the public, and state health 
     agencies. The Committee shall (1) assist the Secretary in the 
     implementation of the Act, (2) assist with coordination among 
     participating agencies and (3) maintain involvement of the 
     broader health community in the development and oversight of 
     related Public Health and Genetics programs.


                     authorization and allocations

       Authorizes $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2009. Seventy percent is dedicated to state block 
     grant programs, evaluation activities and the Advisory 
     Committee. Thirty percent of the total allocation is set-
     aside for funding demonstration projects. States are eligible 
     for a minimum of up to $400,000 annually from the block 
     grant; allocations in excess of $400,000 are determined by a 
     formula based upon population. Funds may be expended for two 
     fiscal years after initial award; unspent funds may be 
     reallocated. States must provide $2 for every $3 federal 
     dollars.


                                reports

       States report annually to HHS on the activities supported 
     by the block grant. HRSA and CDC submit an annual report to 
     the Advisory Committee on activities supported by the Act; 
     this report is transmitted by the Advisory Committee with 
     comments to the Secretary and to Congress.
                                  ____



                           American Public Health Association,

                                 Washington, DC, November 9, 1999.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Public Health 
     Association (APHA), representing over 50,000 public health 
     professionals dedicated to advancing the nation's health is 
     pleased with your introduction of the Genetics and Public 
     Health Services Act.
       This legislation would amend the Public Health Service Act 
     to expand public health resources needed to translate genetic 
     information and technology into practical strategies to 
     improve the public health. APHA strongly supports the safe 
     and effective integration of genetic information and 
     technology into public health practice.
       Specifically, the legislation would provide funding to 
     states to develop and maintain resources needed to use 
     genetic information and technology at all levels of public 
     health systems. The bill would support the development of 
     expertise within state and county health agencies to evaluate 
     the potential impact of public health strategies based on 
     genetic information, to assess the need for genetic services, 
     to provide expert input for policy development, and to assure 
     appropriate referral to or provision of quality genetic 
     services regardless of race, ethnicity or ability to pay.
       APHA looks forward to working with you in moving this 
     important legislation forward. Thank you again for your 
     leadership on this important public health matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Mohammad N. Akher,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           Alliance of Genetic Support Groups,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1999.
     Senator Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the members of the 
     Alliance of Genetic Support Groups, I am writing to express 
     our strong interest in increasing resources for the necessary 
     expansion of genetic services within state, federal and local 
     public health systems.
       The Alliance of Genetic Support Groups is a national 
     coalition of individuals, families and professionals working 
     together to enhance the lives of everyone with genetic 
     conditions. The Alliance mission is to bring the ``people 
     perspective'' to the forefront of discussions about access to 
     quality healthcare, privacy, discrimination and research. 
     Representing 280 support groups of individuals and families 
     with genetic conditions and professional organizations, the 
     Alliance acts on behalf of over three million individuals and 
     families.
       We know, through our membership network and callers to our 
     Genetics Helpline, that resources are desperately needed to 
     address the disparities across the state and federal public 
     health systems.
       We want to emphasize that genetics, from a public health 
     perspective, is much more than simply genetic testing. Vastly 
     increased resources are needed to prepare public health 
     systems to deliver comprehensive and quality genetic 
     services. We need to train public health professionals, 
     educate the public, create family-centered public policies 
     and develop a comprehensive care system that links people to 
     all the services they need--before, after and as a result of 
     genetic testing.
       We applaud your commitment to address these concerns, as 
     well as others close to our members' hearts, about genetic 
     discrimination, privacy and access to quality health care. 
     The Alliance of Genetic Support Groups deeply appreciates all 
     that you have done and are continuing to do to ensure the 
     translation of genetic knowledge into improved public health.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mary E. Davidson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  American College


                                           of Medical Genetics

                                  Bethesda, MD, November 10, 1999.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: As President of the American College 
     of Medical Genetics (ACMG), I am writing to express our deep 
     appreciation and support for your efforts to address the need 
     for more extensive resources and services for public health 
     genetics at the state and federal levels.
       The ACMG is a professional organization representing board-
     certified clinical and laboratory geneticists. We are the 
     newest specialty to be recognized by the American Board of 
     Medical Specialties, and we have full representation in the 
     House of Delegates of the American Medical Association.
       As I recently testified before the Secretary's Advisory 
     Committee on Genetic Testing, knowledge of genetics has 
     expanded rapidly thanks to the enormous international 
     investment in the Human Genome Project. However, little 
     attention has been paid to the crucial issue of integrating 
     it into health care delivery. Medical geneticists are 
     uniquely aware of the need for a thoughtful and organized 
     approach to the translation of achievements in research so 
     that all physicians can more effectively address the problems 
     of individuals who suffer from or have a predisposition 
     toward diseases caused by genetic defects. It is increasingly 
     clear that virtually every common (or rare) disease has a 
     genetic component, thereby making every American citizen a 
     potential beneficiary of medical genetic services. Thus the 
     tools to prevent and to effectively treat diabetes, cancer, 
     hypertension, heart disease, Alzheimer's, asthma, and so many 
     others, will depend not only on knowledge and technology, but 
     also on a systematic integration of these into our health 
     care system at all levels.
       The bill you have introduced (Genetic and Public Health 
     Services Act) provides the resources and organization that 
     can unite the expertise of geneticists and public health 
     officials and help us enter the next century with tools to 
     dramatically improve the public health.
           Sincerely,
                                                 R. Rodney Howell,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               National Society of


                                     Genetic Counselors, Inc.,

                               Wallingford, PA, November 16, 1999.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The National Society of Genetic 
     Counselors (NSGC) is pleased to write this letter of support 
     for a bill you are introducing to establish ``The Genetics 
     and Public Health Services Act.''
       The National Society of Genetic Counselors is the leading 
     voice, authority and advocate for the genetic counseling 
     profession and represents over 1700 genetic counselors. 
     Genetic counselors are master's degree level trained 
     healthcare professionals. We work with patients to help them 
     understand the genetics of their condition and implications 
     for other family members, coordinate evaluations, testing and 
     care and link patients with supportive resources. In our work 
     with patients, we translate complex genetic information into 
     understandable terms and promote autonomous decision-making 
     about their healthcare. Additional information about the NSGC 
     can be found on our website (http://www.nsgc.org).
       Advances are rapidly being made on the identification of 
     gene mutations that cause diseases and genetic conditions. 
     The Human Genome Project, which was initiated in 1990, is 
     mapping the location of all genes. The wealth of genetic 
     information generated by the Human Genome Project will 
     require wide dissemination. Strategies must be developed to 
     translate this genetic information into quality healthcare. 
     Clearly, there is a great need for the development of 
     programs that will ensure that patients are appropriately 
     referred and have access to quality genetic services 
     regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay. It will 
     also be important to develop programs that will ease the 
     physical

[[Page 31088]]

     burden associated with genetic conditions and improve 
     treatment.
       We would like to express our appreciation for your past 
     efforts on healthcare issues, particularly your efforts with 
     the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill to address the risk of genetic 
     discrimination. With the introduction of ``The Genetics and 
     Public Health Services Act,'' you demonstrate foresight in 
     anticipating the greater need for genetic services, once 
     again showing your commitment to quality healthcare for all 
     of us.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Wendy R. Uhlmann,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              The American Society


                                            of Human Genetics,

                                  Bethesda, MD, November 10, 1999.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: As President of the American Society 
     of Human Genetics (ASHG), I am writing to express our deep 
     appreciation and support for your efforts to address the need 
     for more extensive resources and services for public health 
     genetics at the state and local levels.
       The ASHG is a professional organization representing a wide 
     spectrum of human genetics professionals including clinical 
     and laboratory geneticists, genetic counselors, nurses and 
     others interested in the many phases of human genetics 
     studies.
       As was recently stated before the Secretary's Advisory 
     Committee on Genetic Testing, knowledge of genetics has 
     expanded rapidly thanks to the enormous international 
     investment in the Human Genome Project. However, little 
     attention has been paid to the crucial issue of integrating 
     this knowledge into health care delivery. Medical geneticists 
     are uniquely aware of the need for a thoughtful and organized 
     approach to the translation of achievements in research, so 
     that all physicians can more effectively address the problems 
     of individuals who suffer from or have a predisposition to 
     diseases caused by genetic defects. It is increasingly clear 
     that genetic factors are important for virtually every common 
     condition that affects large segments of the population. 
     Thus, the capability to prevent and effectively treat 
     diabetes, cancer, hypertension, heart disease, Alzheimer's, 
     asthma, and many others, will depend not only on expanding 
     knowledge and technology, but also on a systematic 
     integration of these advances into our health care system at 
     all levels.
       The bill you have introduced (Genetic and Public Health 
     Services Act) provides the resources and organization that 
     can unite the expertise of geneticists and public health 
     officials and provide the means to dramatically improve the 
     health of the people by the provision of quality genetic 
     services.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Uta Francke,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. 
        Boxer, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1983. a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to 
increase the amount of funds available for certain agricultural trade 
programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig, Smith 
of Oregon, Boxer, and Feinstein to introduce the Agricultural Market 
Access and Development Act.
  Mr. President, farmers and ranchers in our nation are hurting. Rural 
communities in my home state of Washington have been severely impacted 
by the current crisis in agriculture. The causes are complex and 
diverse, and have been discussed at great length on the floor of the 
United States Senate. Low prices, the loss of markets in Asia, foreign 
trade barriers, dumping, and industry concentration are just a few of 
the difficulties farmers and ranchers, the Administration, and Members 
of Congress are struggling to overcome.
  I am pleased Congress acted to provide emergency assistance as part 
of the fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations act. However, while 
this package was desperately needed, it left our many so-called ``minor 
crop'' producers across the country. It failed to reform our nation's 
plicy on unilateral sanctions. And it didn't compel us to dedicate time 
to really resolve long-term issues that will put American agriculture 
on a more solid foundation. One long-term issue that deserves attention 
is federal support for market access and development.
  Today, I am introducing the Agricultural Market Access and 
Development Act to ensure our producers have the resources they need to 
expand their overseas markets. My bill would authorize the Secretary of 
Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than the current 
$90 million--for the Market Access Program. And it would set a floor of 
$35 million for spending on the foreign Market Development 
``Cooperator'' Program.
  While many Members of Congress and producers have advocated increased 
funding for MAP and the Cooperator Program, these efforts have been 
complicated by our work to balance the budget and meet other important 
national commitments. At the same time, the agricultural community is 
frustrated over the use--or lack of use--of the Export Enhancement 
Program.
  Debate will continue on the merits of using the Export Enhancement 
Program. Nevertheless, I believe we cannot afford to continue wasting 
the precious dollars we target toward agricultural trade. That is 
exactly what is happening now: hundreds of millions of dollars in the 
Export Enhancement Program remain unspent and unused while foreign 
governments heavily subsidize and protect their agricultural economies 
to the detriment of American producers.
  My bill seeks to recover some of our lost trade resources and convert 
them into new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. My bill would 
give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to direct a percentage 
of unspent Export Enhancement Program dollars to market access and 
development programs within the Commodity Credit Corporation. If less 
than 20 percent of funds authorized for the Export Enhancement Program 
are spent by July 1 of a given fiscal year, the Secretary could direct 
up to 50 percent of unspent EEP funds to other programs. If less than 
50 percent--but more than 20 percent--of funds authorized for EEP are 
spent by July 1 of a given fiscal year, the Secretary could direct up 
to 20 percent of unspent EEP funds to other programs.
  Mr. President, I am introducing this legislation today to advance the 
discussion on using all of our trade resources. The numbers included in 
my bill will be subject to further discussion and I welcome it. 
However, I believe this legislation represents a serious effort to use 
our scarce resources wisely.
  Our current trade negotiations on agriculture show that we must be 
willing and able to use federal resources to promote trade. If we do 
not, our negotiations and our producers cannot succeed.
  As we head into the Seattle Round of the World Trade Organization 
this fall, we need to commit ourselves to promoting trade and expanding 
market access. Without this commitment, we will lose opportunities to 
market our products overseas. Without this commitment, the changes we 
made to our farm policy in 1996 will not have a chance in the world of 
succeeding.
  As I said before, Mr. President, agricultural producers in my state 
of Washington are hurting. My state is home to more than 200 ``minor'' 
crops. Washington state is known for its productive apple industry. 
Unfortunately, that industry is in the midst of a terrible economic 
crisis. The loss of markets in Asia, non-frozen apple juice concentrate 
dumping by China, oversupply, poor weather conditions in 1998, and 
generally low prices are driving hundreds of family farms out of 
business.
  This Congress needs to do a better job of addressing the plight of 
all commodity producers, not just those who grow major commodities. My 
legislation is a step in the right direction. It seeks to increase 
funding for the Market Access Program, which is popular among fruit and 
vegetable growers. In fact, it is one of the few federal programs that 
benefit fruit and vegetable producers. Since this Congress has shown 
its reluctance to target meaningful federal aid to minor crop 
producers, the least we can do is strengthen the voluntary programs 
that work for these producers. If we do not, we will be failing to 
promote economic stability in many rural communities.
  However, my bill is not just intended to help fruit and vegetable 
producers. It also encourages transferring unused trade dollars to the 
Foreign Market

[[Page 31089]]

Development Program, which is used by program commodities. Both MAP and 
FMD represent the kind of federal-industry partnerships we should be 
encouraging at a time of limited government resources.
  Mr. President, let me briefly address one criticism of the Market 
Access Program: the issue of whether it is primarily a program that 
benefits large corporations. Congress reformed MAP--known before the 
1996 farm bill as the Market Promotion Program--in 1996 to ensure that 
large corporations with no connections to producers could not access 
MAP funds. I strongly supported that change.
  The new law did allow for the program's continued use by farmers' 
cooperatives, some of which are major industry players. However, it is 
clear to me, and to others who follow the farm economy, that 
encouraging the development of farmers' cooperatives is one of the few 
bright spots in our efforts to keep family farms on the land. 
Therefore, while opponents will continue to point to a few examples of 
entities they believe in no way should be involved in the program, I 
believe my colleagues should keep the broader picture in mind. MAP 
deserves our support.
  Next year, Congress should address long-term agricultural issues. And 
one of those issues should be the transfer of unused Export Enhancement 
Program funds to market access and development programs. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in this effort.
  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:

                                S. 1983

       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 ``Agricultural Market Access 
     and Development Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       Section 211(c)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``and not more than 
     $90,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002,'' and 
     inserting ``not more than $90,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1999, and not less than $90,000,000 nor 
     more than $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002,''.

     SEC. 3. USE OF EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR MARKET 
                   ACCESS OR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

       Section 301(e) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5651) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Use of export enhancement program funds for market 
     access or development programs.--
       ``(A) Less than 20 percent use.--If on July 1 of a fiscal 
     year less than 20 percent of the maximum amount of funds 
     authorized to carry out the program established under this 
     section have been expended during that fiscal year to carry 
     out the program established under this section, the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation may use not more than 50 percent of the 
     unexpended amount to carry out market access and development 
     programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation during that 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) Less than 50 percent use.--If on July 1 of a fiscal 
     year less than 50 percent, but more than 20 percent, of the 
     maximum amount of funds authorized to carry out the program 
     established under this section have been expended during that 
     fiscal year to carry out the program established under this 
     section, the Commodity Credit Corporation may use not more 
     than 20 percent of the unexpended amount to carry out market 
     access and development programs of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation during that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 4. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

       Section 703 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5723) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 703. FUNDING.

       ``The Secretary shall use to carry out this title for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 through 2002 not less than $35,000,000 
     of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation.''.

 Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise before the Senate 
today to express my support for legislation, introduced by Senator 
Murray and others, that would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
to allocate to the Market Access Program unused Export Enhancement 
Program funds.
  I have long been a supporter of the Market Access Program, which was 
designed to promote American agricultural products in foreign markets. 
Since its inception, it has proven to be a model program and has 
successfully fostered the growth of American agriculture producers 
through the expansion of exports. For smaller states like Oregon, the 
Market Access Program has played a critical role in getting the word 
out on an array of agricultural goods that otherwise have difficulty 
penetrating overseas markets. Many Oregon commodities, such as grass 
seed, tree fruits, and potatoes have benefitted greatly in recent years 
from the Market Access Program funding. For example, last year the 
Market Access Program enabled a delegation of Oregon grass seed growers 
to travel to China to meet with government officials interested in 
finding quality grass seed to stabilize river banks near the Three 
Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze River. There are numerous other 
examples where Oregon commodities have been able to make good use of 
these federal dollars.
  Despite the achievements of the Market Access Program in recent 
years, funding for the program has been capped at $90 million. I am 
pleased today to cosponsor this bill which authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture to increase the Market Access Program funding up to a total 
of $200 million using unapportioned Export Enhancement Program funds.
  This proposal has widespread support in my state from farmers and the 
agricultural groups that represent them. they recognize, as I do, that 
expanding markets overseas will be key to restoring the farm economy.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that the Senate will take up this issue 
early in the next session. I urge my colleagues to join in support of 
this legislation to enhance American agricultural export efforts and 
the family farms that depend upon them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 1985. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower 
the adjusted gross income threshold for deductible disaster casualty 
losses to 5 percent, to make such deduction an above-the-line 
deduction, and to allow an election to take such deduction for the 
preceding or succeeding year; to the Committee on Finance.
 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Disaster Victims Tax Relief Act. This legislation will help mitigate 
the losses that hundreds of thousands of Americans incur each year as a 
result of natural disasters, and helps clear the path towards full 
recovery.
  My home state of New Jersey is not known as a place which suffers 
tropical storms or hurricanes with great frequency. However, this past 
September, many of my constituent witnessed nature's fury first hand. 
Hurricane Floyd, one of the largest storms in recent history, battered 
much of New Jersey, along with the several other Eastern states, with 
winds in excess of 140 miles per hour and flash downpours which caused 
extensive flooding. To date, the flooding caused by this disaster has 
inflicted more than $500 million in damages in New Jersey alone, and it 
is estimated that this figure may exceed more than $1 billion when the 
final costs are calculated. In terms of economic damages, New Jersey 
was the second most heavily damaged state as a result of Floyd.
  Natural disasters, such as the one we recently witnessed, too often 
cause people to lose their homes and the businesses that were made 
successful through a lifetime of hard work. This pain is exacerbated by 
the fact that they are still required to meet a heavy tax burden for 
that year. It is unreasonable to expect these unfortunate Americans to 
meet their full tax responsibilities after suffering a cataclysmic 
disaster such as a hurricane such as a hurricane or flood. While our 
current tax code includes a provision that addresses this situation, 
qualification requirements ensure that the overwhelming majority of 
victims cannot utilize the provision to their benefit.
  Under current law, an individual may deduct uninsured damages or 
``casualty losses'' incurred from a natural disaster so long as those 
losses exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI). 
Unfortunately, many victims of

[[Page 31090]]

disasters have found that this threshold is too high for them to 
qualify. Compounding this situation is the fact that only the small 
percentage of taxpayers who itemize their deductions are effectively 
eligible to claim their disaster losses as a deduction. This is 
troubling because 75 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize, comprised 
mostly of lower and middle class families who need this benefit most, 
cannot participate.
  The bill I introduce today is straight forward. First it would reduce 
the current AGI threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent. Second, it 
would make the deductions available an ``above the line'' deduction. 
These two provisions would enable the majority of American taxpayers, 
who do not itemize their returns, to benefit. Third, my bill would 
institute a 2-year ``carry back or forward'' provision which would 
allow people who incur casualty losses to claim the deductions on 
either the previous year's return, or they can defer and claim the 
losses either the following year or the year after. Finally this bill 
is narrowly tailored to provide relief to those people who need it 
most; those who live in a federally declared disaster area. This will 
help avoid abuse of the provision.
  Mr. President, people who have emerged from earthquakes, tornadoes, 
hurricanes and floods are confronted with the daunting task of 
rebuilding their lives in the face of overwhelming economic loss and 
the emotional trauma of losing everything they own. Their tax burden 
should not be one of the obstacles that they must overcome in order to 
embark on the road to recovery. This bill will help ensure that this is 
not the case. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to fully support 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 1988. A bill to reform the State inspection of meat and poultry in 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


            new markets for state-inspected meat act of 1999

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

                                S. 1988

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``New 
     Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Review of State meat and poultry inspection programs.

                        TITLE I--MEAT INSPECTION

Sec. 101. Federal and State cooperation on meat inspection for 
              intrastate distribution.
Sec. 102. State meat inspection programs.

                      TITLE II--POULTRY INSPECTION

Sec. 201. Federal and State cooperation on poultry inspection for 
              intrastate distribution.
Sec. 202. State poultry inspection programs.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Regulations.
Sec. 302. Termination of authority to establish interstate inspection 
              programs.

     SEC. 2. REVIEW OF STATE MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a comprehensive review 
     of each State meat and poultry inspection program, which 
     shall include--
       (1) a determination of the effectiveness of the State 
     program; and
       (2) identification of changes that are necessary to enable 
     future transition to a State program of enforcing Federal 
     inspection requirements as described in the amendments made 
     by sections 102 and 202.
       (b) Comment From Interested Parties.--In designing the 
     review described in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain 
     comment from interested parties.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.
       (2) Available funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, only funds specifically appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) may be used to carry out this section.
                        TITLE I--MEAT INSPECTION

     SEC. 101. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION ON MEAT INSPECTION 
                   FOR INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION.

       (a) Redesignation.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating title III (21 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) as 
     title V and moving that title to the end of that Act;
       (B) by redesignating section 301 (21 U.S.C. 661) as section 
     501;
       (C) in title V (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)), by 
     striking the title heading and inserting the following:
    ``TITLE V--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION ON MEAT INSPECTION FOR 
                       INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION'';
     and
       (D) in the fourth sentence of section 501(c)(1) (as 
     redesignated by subparagraph (B)), by striking ``section 301 
     of the Act'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(4)''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 7(c) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 607(c)) is amended in the second sentence by striking 
     ``section 301 of this Act'' and inserting ``section 
     501(a)(4)''.
       (B) Section 24 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 624) is amended in the last sentence by striking 
     ``section 301 of this Act'' and inserting ``section 
     501(a)(4)''.
       (C) Section 205 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 645) is amended by striking ``section 301 of this 
     Act'' and inserting ``section 501(a)(4)''.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection takes effect on 
     October 1, 2001.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Title V of the Federal Meat Inspection Act 
     (as amended by subsection (a)(1)) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 7(c) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 607(c)) (as amended by subsection (a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended in the second sentence by striking ``section 
     501(a)(4)'' and inserting ``section 413''.
       (B) Section 24 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 624) (as amended by subsection (a)(2)(B)) is amended 
     in the last sentence by striking ``section 501(a)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``section 413''.
       (C) Section 205 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 645) (as amended by subsection (a)(2)(C)) is amended 
     by striking ``section 501(a)(4)'' and inserting ``section 
     413''.
       (3) Effective date.--Except as provided in section 302, 
     this subsection takes effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 102. STATE MEAT INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act (as 
     amended by section 101(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting 
     after title II (21 U.S.C. 641 et seq.) the following:
              ``TITLE III--STATE MEAT INSPECTION PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 301. POLICY AND FINDINGS.

       ``(a) Policy.--It is the policy of Congress to protect the 
     public from meat and meat food products that are adulterated 
     or misbranded and to assist in efforts by State and other 
     government agencies to accomplish that policy.
       ``(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the goal of a safe and wholesome supply of meat and 
     meat food products throughout the United States would be 
     better served if a consistent set of requirements, 
     established by the Federal Government, were applied to all 
     meat and meat food products, whether produced under State 
     inspection or Federal inspection;
       ``(2) under such a system, State and Federal meat 
     inspection programs would function together to create a 
     seamless inspection system to ensure food safety and inspire 
     consumer confidence in the food supply in interstate 
     commerce; and
       ``(3) such a system would ensure the viability of State 
     meat inspection programs, which should help to foster the 
     viability of small establishments.

     ``SEC. 302. APPROVAL OF STATE MEAT INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Secretary may approve a State meat inspection 
     program and allow the shipment in commerce of carcasses, 
     parts of carcasses, meat, and meat food products inspected 
     under the State meat inspection program in accordance with 
     this title.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--To receive or maintain approval from the 
     Secretary for a State meat inspection program in accordance 
     with subsection (a), a State shall--
       ``(A) implement a State meat inspection program that 
     enforces the mandatory antemortem and postmortem inspection, 
     reinspection, sanitation, and related Federal requirements of 
     titles I, II, and IV (including the regulations issued under 
     those titles); and
       ``(B) enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary 
     in accordance with subsection (c).

[[Page 31091]]

       ``(2) Additional requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to the requirements 
     specified in paragraph (1), a State meat inspection program 
     reviewed in accordance with section 2 of the Federal Meat and 
     Poultry State Inspection Requirements Act of 1999 shall 
     implement, not later than October 1, 2002, all 
     recommendations from the review, in a manner approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Review of new state meat inspection programs.--
       ``(i) Definition of new state meat inspection program.--In 
     this subparagraph, the term `new State meat inspection 
     program' means a State meat inspection program that is not 
     approved in accordance with subsection (a) between October 1, 
     2001, and September 30, 2002.
       ``(ii) Review requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date on which the Secretary approves a new State meat 
     inspection program, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of the new State meat inspection 
     program, which shall include--

       ``(I) a determination of the effectiveness of the new State 
     meat inspection program; and
       ``(II) identification of changes necessary to ensure 
     enforcement of Federal inspection requirements.

       ``(iii) Implementation requirements.--In addition to the 
     requirements specified in paragraph (1), to continue to be an 
     approved State meat inspection program, a new State meat 
     inspection program shall implement all recommendations from 
     the review conducted in accordance with this subparagraph, in 
     a manner approved by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Cooperative Agreement.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with a State that establishes the terms 
     governing the relationship between the Secretary and the 
     State meat inspection program and provides for the following:
       ``(1) Provisions consistent with this act.--The State will 
     adopt (including adoption by reference) provisions identical 
     to titles I, II, and IV (including the regulations issued 
     under those titles).
       ``(2) Marking of product.--
       ``(A) Official marks.--State-inspected and passed meat and 
     meat food products will be marked under the supervision of a 
     State inspector with the official mark and be deemed to have 
     been inspected by the Secretary for the purposes of this Act 
     and to have passed the inspection.
       ``(B) Additional marks.--In addition to the official mark, 
     State-inspected and passed meat and meat food products may be 
     marked with the mark of State inspection, in accordance with 
     requirements issued by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Labeling requirements.--The State will comply with 
     all labeling requirements issued by the Secretary governing 
     meat and meat food products inspected under the State meat 
     inspection program.
       ``(4) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary shall have 
     authority--
       ``(A) to detain and seize livestock, carcasses, parts of 
     carcasses, meat, and meat food products under the State meat 
     inspection program;
       ``(B) to obtain access to facilities, records, livestock, 
     carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat food products 
     of any person, firm, or corporation that slaughters, 
     processes, handles, stores, transports, or sells meat or meat 
     food products inspected under the State meat inspection 
     program to determine compliance with this Act (including the 
     regulations issued under this Act); and
       ``(C) to direct the State to conduct any activity 
     authorized to be conducted by the Secretary under this Act 
     (including the regulations issued under this Act).
       ``(5) Other terms.--The cooperative agreement shall include 
     such other terms as the Secretary determines to be necessary 
     to ensure that the actions of the State and the State meat 
     inspection program are consistent with this Act (including 
     the regulations issued under this Act).
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may impose additional 
     requirements on establishments under the State meat 
     inspection program, as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Restriction on establishment size.--The Secretary 
     shall authorize a State to establish the maximum size of 
     establishments that the State will accept into the State meat 
     inspection program.
       ``(e) Reimbursement of State Costs.--The Secretary may 
     reimburse the State for not more than 60 percent of the 
     State's costs of meeting the Federal requirements for the 
     State meat inspection program.
       ``(f) Sampling.--
       ``(1) Salmonella sampling and testing.--To the extent that 
     the Secretary requires establishments to meet microbiological 
     performance standards for Salmonella, the Secretary shall 
     sample and test for Salmonella in establishments subject to 
     inspection under the State meat inspection program.
       ``(2) Other sampling and testing.--In addition to the 
     activities described in paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     perform other sampling and testing of meat and meat food 
     products in establishments described in that paragraph.
       ``(g) Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State meat inspection program does not comply with this title 
     or the cooperative agreement under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to ensure that the carcasses, parts of 
     carcasses, meat, and meat food products in the State are 
     inspected in a manner that effectuates this Act (including 
     the regulations issued under this Act).

     ``SEC. 303. AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER STATE MEAT INSPECTION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Notification.--If the Secretary has reason to believe 
     that a State is not in compliance with this Act (including 
     the regulations issued under this Act) or the cooperative 
     agreement under section 302(c) and is considering the 
     revocation or temporary suspension of the approval of the 
     State meat inspection program, the Secretary shall promptly 
     notify and consult with the Governor of the State.
       ``(b) Suspension and Revocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may revoke or temporarily 
     suspend the approval of a State meat inspection program and 
     take over a State meat inspection program if the Secretary 
     determines that the State meat inspection program is not in 
     compliance with this Act (including the regulations issued 
     under this Act) or the cooperative agreement.
       ``(2) Procedures for reinstatement.--A State meat 
     inspection program that has been the subject of a revocation 
     may be reinstated as an approved State meat inspection 
     program under this Act only in accordance with the procedures 
     under section 302(b)(2)(B).
       ``(c) Publication.--If the Secretary revokes or temporarily 
     suspends the approval of a State meat inspection program in 
     accordance with subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish 
     the determination under that subsection in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(d) Inspection of Establishments.--Upon the expiration of 
     30 days after the date of publication of a determination 
     under subsection (c), an establishment subject to a State 
     meat inspection program with respect to which the Secretary 
     makes a determination under subsection (b) shall be inspected 
     by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 304. EXPEDITED AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER INSPECTION OF 
                   STATE-INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if the 
     Secretary determines that an establishment operating under a 
     State meat inspection program is not operating in accordance 
     with this Act (including the regulations issued under this 
     Act) or the cooperative agreement under section 302(c), and 
     the State, after notification by the Secretary to the 
     Governor, has not taken appropriate action within a 
     reasonable time as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     may immediately determine that the establishment is an 
     establishment that shall be inspected by the Secretary, until 
     such time as the Secretary determines that the State will 
     meet the requirements of this Act (including the regulations) 
     and the cooperative agreement with respect to the 
     establishment.

     ``SEC. 305. ANNUAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a process to review annually each State meat 
     inspection program approved under this title and to certify 
     the State meat inspection programs that comply with the 
     cooperative agreement entered into with the State under 
     section 302(c).
       ``(b) Comment From Interested Parties.--In designing the 
     review process described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall solicit comment from interested parties.

     ``SEC. 306. FEDERAL INSPECTION OPTION.

       ``(a) In General.--An establishment that operates in a 
     State with an approved State meat inspection program may 
     apply for inspection under the State meat inspection program 
     or for Federal inspection.
       ``(b) Limitation.--An establishment shall not make an 
     application under subsection (a) more than once every 4 
     years.''.
       (b) Restaurants and Retail Stores.--Title IV of the Federal 
     Meat Inspection Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 411 (21 U.S.C. 681) as section 
     414; and
       (2) by inserting after section 410 (21 U.S.C. 680) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 411. RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL STORES.

       ``(a) Limitation on Applicability of Inspection 
     Requirements.--The provisions of this Act requiring 
     inspection of the slaughter of animals and the preparation of 
     carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat food products 
     shall not apply to operations of types traditionally and 
     usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants, if the 
     operations are conducted at a retail store, restaurant, or 
     similar retail establishment for sale of such prepared 
     articles in normal retail quantities or for service of the 
     articles to consumers at such an establishment.
       ``(b) Central Kitchen Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, 
     operations conducted at a central kitchen facility of a 
     restaurant shall be considered to be conducted at a 
     restaurant if the central kitchen of the restaurant prepares 
     meat or meat food products that are ready to eat when they 
     leave the facility and are served in meals or as entrees only 
     to customers at restaurants owned or operated by the same 
     person, firm, or corporation that owns or operates the 
     facility.
       ``(2) Exception.--A facility described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be subject to section 202

[[Page 31092]]

     and may be subject to the inspection requirements of title I 
     for as long as the Secretary determines to be necessary, if 
     the Secretary determines that the sanitary conditions or 
     practices of the facility or the processing procedures or 
     methods at the facility are such that any of the meat or meat 
     food products of the facility are rendered adulterated.

     ``SEC. 412. ACCEPTANCE OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF MEAT AND 
                   MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS.

       ``Notwithstanding any provision of State law, a State or 
     local government shall not prohibit or restrict the movement 
     or sale of meat or meat food products that have been 
     inspected and passed in accordance with this Act for 
     interstate commerce.

     ``SEC. 413. ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR FEDERAL AND STATE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``The Secretary may appoint advisory committees consisting 
     of such representatives of appropriate State agencies as the 
     Secretary and the State agencies may designate to consult 
     with the Secretary concerning State and Federal programs with 
     respect to meat inspection and other matters within the scope 
     of this Act.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October 
     1, 2001.
                      TITLE II--POULTRY INSPECTION

     SEC. 201. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION ON POULTRY INSPECTION 
                   FOR INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION.

       (a) Redesignation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 454) is redesignated as section 34 
     and moved to the end of that Act.
       (2) Intrastate program.--Section 34 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) is amended 
     by striking the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 34. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION ON POULTRY 
                   INSPECTION FOR INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION.''.

       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 8(b) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 457(b)) is amended in the second sentence by striking 
     ``section 5 of this Act'' and inserting ``section 34(a)(4)''.
       (B) Section 11(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 460(e)) is amended by striking ``section 5 of this 
     Act'' and inserting ``section 34(a)(4)''.
       (4) Effective date.--This subsection takes effect on 
     October 1, 2001.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 34 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1)) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 8(b) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 457(b)) (as amended by subsection (a)(3)(A)) is 
     amended in the second sentence by striking ``section 
     34(a)(4)'' and inserting ``section 33''.
       (B) Section 11(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 460(e)) (as amended by subsection (a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 34(a)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``section 33''.
       (3) Effective date.--Except as provided in section 302, 
     this subsection takes effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 202. STATE POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (as amended by section 201(a)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting after section 4 the following:

     ``SEC. 5. STATE POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Policy.--It is the policy of Congress to protect the 
     public from poultry products that are adulterated or 
     misbranded and to assist in efforts by State and other 
     government agencies to accomplish that policy.
       ``(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the goal of a safe and wholesome supply of poultry 
     products throughout the United States would be better served 
     if a consistent set of requirements, established by the 
     Federal Government, were applied to all poultry products, 
     whether produced under State inspection or Federal 
     inspection;
       ``(2) under such a system, State and Federal poultry 
     inspection programs would function together to create a 
     seamless inspection system to ensure food safety and inspire 
     consumer confidence in the food supply in interstate 
     commerce; and
       ``(3) such a system would ensure the viability of State 
     poultry inspection programs, which should help to foster the 
     viability of small official establishments.
       ``(c) Approval of State Poultry Inspection Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Secretary may approve a State poultry 
     inspection program and allow the shipment in commerce of 
     poultry products inspected under the State poultry inspection 
     program in accordance with this section and section 5A.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--To receive or maintain approval from the 
     Secretary for a State poultry inspection program in 
     accordance with paragraph (1), a State shall--
       ``(i) implement a State poultry inspection program that 
     enforces the mandatory antemortem and postmortem inspection, 
     reinspection, sanitation, and related Federal requirements of 
     sections 1 through 4 and 6 through 33 (including the 
     regulations issued under those sections); and
       ``(ii) enter into a cooperative agreement with the 
     Secretary in accordance with paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the requirements 
     specified in subparagraph (A), a State poultry inspection 
     program reviewed in accordance with section 2 of the Federal 
     Meat and Poultry State Inspection Requirements Act of 1999 
     shall implement, not later than October 1, 2002, all 
     recommendations from the review, in a manner approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(ii) Review of new state poultry inspection programs.--

       ``(I) Definition of new state poultry inspection program.--
     In this clause, the term `new State poultry inspection 
     program' means a State poultry inspection program that is not 
     approved in accordance with paragraph (1) between October 1, 
     2001, and September 30, 2002.
       ``(II) Review requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date on which the Secretary approves a new State poultry 
     inspection program, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of the new State poultry inspection 
     program, which shall include--

       ``(aa) a determination of the effectiveness of the new 
     State poultry inspection program; and
       ``(bb) identification of changes necessary to ensure 
     enforcement under the new State poultry inspection program of 
     Federal inspection requirements.

       ``(III) Implementation requirements.--In addition to the 
     requirements specified in subparagraph (A), to continue to be 
     an approved State poultry inspection program, a new State 
     poultry inspection program shall implement all 
     recommendations from the review conducted in accordance with 
     this clause, in a manner approved by the Secretary.

       ``(3) Cooperative agreement.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with a State that establishes the terms 
     governing the relationship between the Secretary and the 
     State poultry inspection program and provides for the 
     following:
       ``(A) Provisions consistent with this act.--The State will 
     adopt (including adoption by reference) provisions identical 
     to sections 1 through 4 and 6 through 33 (including the 
     regulations issued under those sections).
       ``(B) Marking of product.--
       ``(i) Official marks.--State-inspected and passed poultry 
     products will be marked under the supervision of a State 
     inspector with the official mark and be deemed to have been 
     inspected by the Secretary for the purposes of this Act and 
     to have passed the inspection.
       ``(ii) Additional marks.--In addition to the official mark, 
     State-inspected and passed poultry products may be marked 
     with the mark of State inspection, in accordance with 
     requirements issued by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Labeling requirements.--The State will comply with 
     all labeling requirements issued by the Secretary governing 
     poultry products inspected under the State poultry inspection 
     program.
       ``(D) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary shall have 
     authority--
       ``(i) to detain and seize poultry and poultry products 
     under the State poultry inspection program;
       ``(ii) to obtain access to facilities, records, and poultry 
     products of any person that slaughters, processes, handles, 
     stores, transports, or sells poultry products inspected under 
     the State poultry inspection program to determine compliance 
     with this Act (including the regulations issued under this 
     Act); and
       ``(iii) to direct the State to conduct any activity 
     authorized to be conducted by the Secretary under this Act 
     (including the regulations issued under this Act).
       ``(E) Other terms.--The cooperative agreement shall include 
     such other terms as the Secretary determines to be necessary 
     to ensure that the actions of the State and the State poultry 
     inspection program are consistent with this Act (including 
     the regulations issued under this Act).
       ``(4) Additional requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may impose additional 
     requirements on official establishments under the State 
     poultry inspection program, as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Restriction on establishment size.--The Secretary 
     shall authorize a State to establish the maximum size of 
     official establishments that the State will accept into the 
     State poultry inspection program.
       ``(5) Reimbursement of state costs.--The Secretary may 
     reimburse the State for not more than 60 percent of the 
     State's costs of meeting the Federal requirements for the 
     State poultry inspection program.
       ``(6) Sampling.--
       ``(A) Salmonella sampling and testing.--To the extent that 
     the Secretary requires official establishments to meet 
     microbiological performance standards for Salmonella, the 
     Secretary shall sample and test for Salmonella in official 
     establishments subject to inspection under the State poultry 
     inspection program.
       ``(B) Other sampling and testing.--In addition to the 
     activities described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may 
     perform other

[[Page 31093]]

     sampling and testing of poultry products in official 
     establishments described in that subparagraph.
       ``(7) Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State poultry inspection program does not comply with this 
     section, section 5A, or the cooperative agreement under 
     paragraph (3), the Secretary shall take such action as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure that the 
     poultry products in the State are inspected in a manner that 
     effectuates this Act (including the regulations issued under 
     this Act).
       ``(d) Annual Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a process to review annually each State poultry 
     inspection program approved under this section and to certify 
     the State poultry inspection programs that comply with the 
     cooperative agreement entered into with the State under 
     subsection (c)(3).
       ``(2) Comment from interested parties.--In designing the 
     review process described in paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall solicit comment from interested parties.
       ``(e) Federal Inspection Option.--
       ``(1) In general.--An official establishment that operates 
     in a State with an approved State poultry inspection program 
     may apply for inspection under the State poultry inspection 
     program or for Federal inspection.
       ``(2) Limitation.--An official establishment shall not make 
     an application under paragraph (1) more than once every 4 
     years.

     ``SEC. 5A. AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER STATE POULTRY INSPECTION 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Authority To Take Over State Poultry Inspection 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Notification.--If the Secretary has reason to believe 
     that a State is not in compliance with this Act (including 
     the regulations issued under this Act) or the cooperative 
     agreement under section 5(c)(3) and is considering the 
     revocation or temporary suspension of the approval of the 
     State poultry inspection program, the Secretary shall 
     promptly notify and consult with the Governor of the State.
       ``(2) Suspension and revocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may revoke or temporarily 
     suspend the approval of a State poultry inspection program 
     and take over a State poultry inspection program if the 
     Secretary determines that the State poultry inspection 
     program is not in compliance with this Act (including the 
     regulations issued under this Act) or the cooperative 
     agreement.
       ``(B) Procedures for reinstatement.--A State poultry 
     inspection program that has been the subject of a revocation 
     may be reinstated as an approved State poultry inspection 
     program under this Act only in accordance with the procedures 
     under section 5(c)(2)(B)(ii).
       ``(3) Publication.--If the Secretary revokes or temporarily 
     suspends the approval of a State poultry inspection program 
     in accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall publish 
     the determination under that paragraph in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(4) Inspection of establishments.--Upon the expiration of 
     30 days after the date of publication of a determination 
     under paragraph (3), an official establishment subject to a 
     State poultry inspection program with respect to which the 
     Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (2) shall be 
     inspected by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Expedited Authority To Take Over Inspection of State-
     Inspected Official Establishments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, if the Secretary determines that an 
     official establishment operating under a State poultry 
     inspection program is not operating in accordance with this 
     Act (including the regulations issued under this Act) or the 
     cooperative agreement under section 5(c)(3), and the State, 
     after notification by the Secretary to the Governor, has not 
     taken appropriate action within a reasonable time as 
     determined by the Secretary, the Secretary may immediately 
     determine that the official establishment is an establishment 
     that shall be inspected by the Secretary, until such time as 
     the Secretary determines that the State will meet the 
     requirements of this Act (including the regulations) and the 
     cooperative agreement with respect to the official 
     establishment.''.
       (b) Restaurants and Retail Stores, Acceptance of Interstate 
     Shipments of Poultry Products, and Advisory Committees for 
     Federal and State Programs.--The Poultry Products Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 30 the following:

     ``SEC. 31. RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL STORES.

       ``(a) Limitation on Applicability of Inspection 
     Requirements.--The provisions of this Act requiring 
     inspection of the slaughter of poultry and the processing of 
     poultry products shall not apply to operations of types 
     traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and 
     restaurants, if the operations are conducted at a retail 
     store, restaurant, or similar retail establishment for sale 
     of such prepared articles in normal retail quantities or for 
     service of the articles to consumers at such an 
     establishment.
       ``(b) Central Kitchen Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, 
     operations conducted at a central kitchen facility of a 
     restaurant shall be considered to be conducted at a 
     restaurant if the central kitchen of the restaurant prepares 
     poultry products that are ready to eat when they leave the 
     facility and are served in meals or as entrees only to 
     customers at restaurants owned or operated by the same person 
     that owns or operates the facility.
       ``(2) Exception.--A facility described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be subject to section 11(b) and may be subject to the 
     inspection requirements of this Act for as long as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary, if the Secretary 
     determines that the sanitary conditions or practices of the 
     facility or the processing procedures or methods at the 
     facility are such that any of the poultry products of the 
     facility are rendered adulterated.

     ``SEC. 32. ACCEPTANCE OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF POULTRY 
                   PRODUCTS.

       ``Notwithstanding any provision of State law, a State or 
     local government shall not prohibit or restrict the movement 
     or sale of poultry products that have been inspected and 
     passed in accordance with this Act for interstate commerce.

     ``SEC. 33. ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR FEDERAL AND STATE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``The Secretary may appoint advisory committees consisting 
     of such representatives of appropriate State agencies as the 
     Secretary and the State agencies may designate to consult 
     with the Secretary concerning State and Federal programs with 
     respect to poultry product inspection and other matters 
     within the scope of this Act.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October 
     1, 2001.
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than October 1, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may promulgate such regulations as are necessary 
     to implement the amendments made by sections 102 and 202.

     SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AN INTERSTATE 
                   INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

       If the Secretary of Agriculture has not approved any State 
     meat inspection program or State poultry inspection program 
     by entering into a cooperative agreement under title III of 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act and sections 5 and 5A of the 
     Poultry Products Inspection Act (as amended by this Act) by 
     September 30, 2002, sections 101(b), 102, 201(b), and 202, 
     and the amendments made by those sections, are repealed 
     effective as of that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1989. A bill to ensure that employees of traveling sales crews are 
protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and under other 
provisions of law; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                  traveling sales crew protection act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation to crack 
down on abuses in the traveling sales crew industry. These companies 
employ crews who travel from city to city selling products door to 
door. Often times, however, these companies mistreat their workers and 
violate local, state, and federal labor law. Because they rapidly move 
from state to state, enforcement efforts are difficult if not 
impossible for local authorities.
  The plight of the workers in this business came home to me, and the 
citizens of Wisconsin, as a result of a particularly tragic crash in 
March of this year. A van carrying 14 young people overturned due to 
reckless driving, killing seven and injuring the others, many 
seriously. The driver had a suspended license and a series of 
violations. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Since 1992, 
forty-two sales people have been killed or injured in similar crashes. 
The company involved in the Wisconsin crash had 92 labor violations and 
105 violations for soliciting without a license.
  Regrettably, there is more to these companies than just bad driving 
records. In 1987 Senator Roth, as part of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations looked into this industry, and was appalled at what he 
found. Incidents of verbal and physical abuse of workers were 
widespread. Young people were coerced into continuing to sell long 
after they wanted to leave through threats and taunts from their 
employees. When sellers were able to get free they were often unpaid or 
denied the bus ticket home they were promised when they signed up.
  The compensation system for the workers was also rigged to ensure 
that workers could not leave. Prospective sellers were promised big 
bucks when they were recruited, but soon found that decent pay was 
difficult to come by. Sellers were paid on a commission basis according 
to their sales, but they

[[Page 31094]]

were also charged by the company for their accommodations and fined for 
small infractions like showing up late to meetings or sleeping on the 
van. Salespeople were not paid in a timely manner, but their earnings 
were kept on ``paper'' and the employees only drew a daily allowance to 
pay for food. Employees were seldom allowed to see the paper work that 
tracked their earnings so they had little idea about how much they are 
entitled. Many found that they were not able to keep up with the sales 
and fell in debt to the company. After working 12 hours days, six days 
a week for months, employees actually owed the company money! These 
young people became indentured servants, working long hours for only 
room and board.
  In the twelve years since Senator Roth's investigation, nothing has 
changed. These abuses continue, and Congress should act.
  In the Wisconsin case the company's record of disregard for local and 
state laws was a signal of their disdain for the safety of their 
workers. This company should not have been allowed to continue to 
operate with this kind of record. Government needed to step in earlier, 
before this tragedy occurred, instead of picking up the pieces 
afterward.
  I am not one to frivolously engage in regulating business, but in 
this case the need for federal involvement is clear. Because of the 
mobility of these companies, states cannot crack down on these groups 
alone. They need federal help to eliminate the unscrupulous actors in 
the industry.
  The Traveling Sales Crew Protection Act would take important steps to 
eliminate employers who abuse their workers. First, it would no longer 
allow minors to be employed in this line of work. Door to door sales 
can be dangerous work and combined with the long hours and hazardous 
travel, creates a job too dangerous for children. Second, the bill 
would narrowly eliminate the exemption under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act for these specific kinds of operations. Covering these employees 
with minimum wages laws and overtime requirements protects them from 
becoming indentured servants to their employers through complex 
compensation systems. This provision is carefully crafted to cover only 
traveling sales crews, individuals who sell over the road, or at trade 
shows would be unaffected. Lastly the bill creates a licensing 
procedure through the Department of Labor to monitor those engaged in 
supervising and running these operations.
  These measures are important steps forward in a nationwide effort to 
eliminate this particularly abusive form of worker exploitation. I hope 
I will have my colleagues support as I try to make the painful crash in 
Janesville, the last chapter in this shameful story.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1989

       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 ``Traveling Sales Crew 
     Protection Act''.
               TITLE I--FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938

     SEC. 101. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS TO CERTAIN OUTSIDE 
                   SALESMAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) For purposes of subsection (a)(1), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term `outside 
     salesman' shall not include any individual employed in the 
     position of a salesman where the individual travels with a 
     group of salespeople, including a supervisor, team leader or 
     crew leader, and the employees in the group do not return to 
     their permanent residences at the end of the work day.''.
       (b) Limitation on Child Labor.--Section 12 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) No individual under 18 years of age may be employed 
     in a position requiring the individual to engaged in door to 
     door sales or in related support work in a manner that 
     requires the individual to remain away from his or her 
     permanent residence for more than 24 hours.''.
       (c) Rules and Regulations.--The Secretary of Labor may 
     issue such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry 
     out the amendments made by this section, consistent with the 
     requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
             TITLE II--PROTECTION OF TRAVELING SALES CREWS

     SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title--
       (1) to remove the restraints on interstate commerce caused 
     by activities detrimental to traveling sales crew workers;
       (2) to require the employers of such workers to register 
     under this Act; and
       (3) to assure necessary protections for such employees.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Certificate of registration.--The term ``Certificate of 
     Registration'' means a Certificate issued by the Secretary 
     under section 203(c)(1).
       (2) Employ.--The term ``employ'' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 3(g) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 201(g)).
       (3) Goods.--The term ``goods'' means wares, products, 
     commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of 
     interstate commerce of any character, or any part or 
     ingredient thereof.
       (4) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, 
     cooperative, or corporation.
       (5) Sale, sell.--The terms ``sale'' or ``sell'' include any 
     sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, 
     shipment for sale, or other disposition of goods.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.
       (7) Traveling sales crew worker.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``traveling sales crew worker'' means an individual 
     who--
       (i) is employed as a salesperson or in related support 
     work;
       (ii) travels with a group of salespersons, including a 
     supervisor; and
       (iii) is required to be absent overnight from his or her 
     permanent place of residence.
       (B) Limitation.--The term ``traveling sales crew worker'' 
     does not include--
       (i) any individual who meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A) if such individual is traveling to a trade 
     show or convention; or
       (ii) any immediate family member of a traveling sales crew 
     employer.

     SEC. 203. REGISTRATION OF EMPLOYERS AND SUPERVISORS OF 
                   TRAVELING SALES CREW WORKERS.

       (a) Registration Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall engage in any form of 
     employment of traveling sales crew workers, unless such 
     person has a certificate of registration from the Secretary.
       (2) Supervisors.--A traveling sales crew employer shall not 
     hire, employ, or use any individual as a supervisor of a 
     traveling sales crew, unless such individual has a 
     certificate of registration from the Secretary.
       (3) Display of certificate of registration.--Each 
     registered traveling sales crew employer and each registered 
     traveling sales crew supervisor shall carry at all times 
     while engaging in traveling sales crew activities a 
     certificate of registration from the Secretary and, upon 
     request, shall exhibit that certificate to all persons with 
     whom they intend to deal.
       (b) Application for Registration.--Any person desiring to 
     be issued a certificate of registration from the Secretary, 
     as either a traveling sales crew employer or traveling sales 
     crew supervisor, shall file with the Secretary a written 
     application that contains the following:
       (1) A declaration, subscribed and sworn to by the 
     applicant, stating the applicant's permanent place of 
     residence, the type or types of sales activities to be 
     performed, and such other relevant information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       (2) A statement identifying each vehicle to be used to 
     transport any member of any traveling sales crew and, if the 
     vehicle is or will be owned or controlled by the applicant, 
     documentation showing that the applicant is in compliance 
     with the requirements of section 204(d) with respect to each 
     such vehicle.
       (3) A statement identifying, with as much specificity as 
     the Secretary may require, each facility or real property to 
     be used to house any member of any traveling sales crew and, 
     if the facility or real property is or will be owned or 
     controlled by the applicant, documentation showing that the 
     applicant is in compliance with section 204(e) with respect 
     to each such facility or real property.
       (4) A set of fingerprints of the applicant.
       (5) A declaration, subscribed and sworn to by the 
     applicant, consenting to the designation by a court of the 
     Secretary as an agent available to accept service of summons 
     in any action against the applicant, if the applicant has 
     left the jurisdiction in which the action is commenced or 
     otherwise has become unavailable to accept service.
       (c) Issuance of Certificate of Registration.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with regulations, and after 
     any investigation which the Secretary may deem appropriate, 
     the Secretary shall issue a Certificate of Registration, as 
     either a traveling sales crew

[[Page 31095]]

     employer or traveling sales crew supervisor, to any person 
     who meets the standards for such registration.
       (2) Refusal to issue or renew, suspension and revocation.--
     The Secretary may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or 
     revoke, a Certificate of Registration if the applicant for or 
     holder or the Certificate--
       (1) has knowingly made any misrepresentation in the 
     application for such Certificate of Registration;
       (2) is not the real party in interest with respect to the 
     application or Certificate of Registration and the real party 
     in interest is a person who--
       (A) has been refused issuance or renewal of a Certificate;
       (B) has had a Certificate suspended or revoked; or
       (C) does not qualify for a Certificate under this section;
       (3) has failed to comply with this title or any regulation 
     promulgated under this title;
       (4) has failed--
       (A) to pay any court judgment obtained by the Secretary or 
     any other person under this title or any regulation 
     promulgated under this title; or
       (B) to comply with any final order issued by the Secretary 
     as a result of a violation of this title or any regulation 
     promulgated under this title;
       (5) has been convicted within the 5 years preceding the 
     date on which the application was filed or the Certificate 
     was issued--
       (A) of any crime under Federal or State law relating to the 
     sale, distribution or possession of alcoholic beverages or 
     narcotics, in connection with or incident to any traveling 
     sales crew activities;
       (B) of any crime under Federal or State law relating to 
     child abuse, neglect, or endangerment; or
       (C) of any felony under Federal or State law involving 
     robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, grand larceny, 
     burglary, arson, murder, rape, assault with intent to kill, 
     assault which inflicts grievous bodily injury, prostitution, 
     peonage, or smuggling or harboring individuals who have 
     entered the United States illegally;
       (6) has been found to have violated paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     section 274A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1) or (2));
       (7) has failed to comply with any bonding or security 
     requirements as the Secretary may establish; or
       (8) has failed to satisfy any other requirement which the 
     Secretary may by regulation establish.
       (d) Administrative Proceedings and Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--A person who is refused the issuance or 
     renewal of a Certificate or Registration, or whose 
     Certificate of Registration is suspended or revoked, shall be 
     afforded an opportunity for an agency hearing, upon a request 
     made within 30 days after the date of issuance of the notice 
     of refusal, suspension, or revocation. If no hearing is 
     requested as provided for in this subsection, the refusal, 
     suspension, or revocation shall constitute a final and 
     unappealable order.
       (2) Hearing.--If a hearing is requested under paragraph 
     (1), the initial agency decision shall be made by an 
     administrative law judge, with all issues to be determined on 
     the record pursuant to section 554 of title 5, United States 
     Code, and such decision shall become the final order unless 
     the Secretary modifies or vacates the decision. Notice of 
     intent to modify or vacate the decision of the administrative 
     law judge shall be issued to the parties within 90 days after 
     the decision of the administrative law judge. A final order 
     which takes effect under this paragraph shall be subject to 
     review only as provided under paragraph (3).
       (3) Review by court.--Any person against whom an order has 
     been entered after an agency hearing under this subsection 
     may obtain review by the United States district court for any 
     district in which the person is located, or the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, by filing a 
     notice of appeal in such court within 30 days from the date 
     of such agency order, and simultaneously sending a copy of 
     such notice by registered mail to the Secretary. The 
     Secretary shall promptly certify and file in such court the 
     record upon which the agency order was based. The findings of 
     the Secretary shall be set aside only if found to be 
     unsupported by substantial evidence as provided by section 
     706(2)(E) of title 5, United States code. Any final decision, 
     order, or judgment of such District Court concerning such 
     review shall be subject to appeal as provided for in chapter 
     83 of title 28, United States Code.
       (e) Transfer or Assignment of Certificate; Expiration; 
     Renewal.--
       (1) Limitation.--A Certificate of Registration may not be 
     transferred or assigned.
       (2) Expiration and extension.--
       (A) Expiration.--Unless earlier suspended or revoked, a 
     Certificate of Registration shall expire 12 months from the 
     date of issuance.
       (B) Extension.--A Certificate of Registration may be 
     temporarily extended, at the Secretary's discretion, by the 
     filing of an application with the Secretary at least 30 days 
     prior to the Certificate's expiration date.
       (3) Renewal.--A Certificate of Registration may be renewed 
     through the application process provided for in subsections 
     (b) and (c).
       (f) Notice of Address Change; Amendment of Certificate of 
     Registration.--During the period for which a Certificate of 
     Registration is in effect, the traveling sales crew employer 
     or supervisor named on the Certificate shall--
       (1) provide to the Secretary within 30 days a notice of 
     each change of permanent place of residence; and
       (2) apply to the Secretary to amend the Certificate of 
     Registration whenever the person intends to--
       (A) engage in any form of traveling sales crew activity not 
     identified on the Certificate;
       (B) use or cause to be used any vehicle not covered by the 
     Certificate to transport any traveling sales crew worker; or
       (C) use or cause to be used any facility or real property 
     not covered by the Certificate to house any traveling sales 
     crew worker.
       (g) Filing Fee.--The Secretary shall require the payment of 
     a fee by an employer filing an application for the issuance 
     or renewal of a Certificate of Registration. The amount of 
     the fee shall be $500 for a Certificate for an employer and 
     $50 for a Certificate for a supervisor. Sums collected 
     pursuant to this section shall be applied by the Secretary 
     toward reimbursement of the costs of administering this 
     title.

     SEC. 204. OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYERS OF TRAVELING SALES CREW 
                   WORKERS.

       (a) Disclosure of Terms and Conditions of Employment.--
       (1) Written disclosure.--At the time of recruitment, each 
     traveling sales crew worker shall be provided with a written 
     disclosure of the following information, which shall be 
     accurate and complete to the best of the employer's 
     knowledge:
       (A) The place or places of employment, stated with as much 
     specificity as possible.
       (B) The wage rate or rates to be paid.
       (C) The type or types of work on which the worker may be 
     employed.
       (D) The period of employment.
       (E) The transportation, housing, and any other employee 
     benefit to be provided, and any costs to be charged to the 
     worker for each such benefit.
       (F) The existence of any strike or other concerted work 
     stoppage, slowdown, or interruption of operations by 
     employees at the place of employment.
       (G) Whether State workers' compensation insurance is 
     provided and, if so, the name of the State workers' 
     compensation insurance carrier, the name of the policyholder 
     of such insurance, the name and the telephone number of each 
     person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the 
     time period within which such notice must be given.
       (2) Records and statements.--Each employer of traveling 
     sales crew workers shall--
       (A) with respect to each such worker, make, keep, and 
     preserve records for 3 years of the--
       (i) basis on which wages are paid;
       (ii) number of piecework units earned, if paid on a 
     piecework basis;
       (iii) number of hours worked;
       (iv) total pay period earnings;
       (v) specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum 
     withheld; and
       (vi) net pay; and
       (B) provide to each worker for each pay period, an itemized 
     written statement of the information required under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (b) Payment of Wages When Due.--Each traveling sales crew 
     worker shall be paid the wages owed that worker when due. The 
     payment of wages shall be in United States currency or in a 
     negotiable instrument such as a bank check. The payment of 
     wages shall be accompanied by the written disclosure required 
     by subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (c) Costs of Goods, Services, and Business Expenses.--
       (1) Prohibition.--No employer of traveling sales crew 
     workers shall--
       (A) require any worker to purchase any goods or services 
     solely from such employer; or
       (B) impose on any worker any of the employer's business 
     expenses, such as the cost of maintaining and operating a 
     vehicle used to transport the traveling sales crew.
       (2) Inclusion as part of wages.--An employer may include as 
     part of the wages paid to a traveling sales crew worker the 
     reasonable cost to the employer of furnishing board, lodging, 
     or other facilities to such worker, so long as--
       (A) such facilities are customarily furnished by such 
     employer to the employees of the employer; and
       (B) such cost does not exceed the fair market value of such 
     facility and does not include any profit to the employer.
       (d) Safety and Health in Transportation.--
       (1) Standards.--An employer of traveling sales crew workers 
     shall provide transportation for such workers in a manner 
     that is consistent with the following standards:
       (A) The employer shall ensure that each vehicle which the 
     employer uses or causes to be used for such transportation 
     conforms to the standards prescribed by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) and conforms to other

[[Page 31096]]

     applicable Federal and State safety standards.
       (B) The employer shall ensure that each driver of each such 
     vehicle has a valid and appropriate license, as provided by 
     State law, to operate the vehicle.
       (C) The employer shall have an insurance policy or fidelity 
     bond in accordance with subsection (c).
       (2) Promulgation by secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe, by regulation, such safety and health standards as 
     may be appropriate for vehicles used to transport traveling 
     sales crew workers. In establishing such standards, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the type of vehicle used;
       (B) the passenger capacity of the vehicle;
       (C) the distance which such workers will be carried in the 
     vehicle;
       (D) the type of roads and highways on which such workers 
     will be carried in the vehicle;
       (E) the extent to which a proposed standard would cause an 
     undue burden on an employer of traveling sales crew workers; 
     and
       (F) any standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under part II of the Interstate Commerce Act 
     (49 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or any successor provision of 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.
       (e) Safety and Health in Housing.--An employer of traveling 
     sales crew workers shall provide housing for such workers in 
     a manner that is consistent with the following standards:
       (1) If the employer owns or controls the facility or real 
     property which is used for housing traveling sales crew 
     workers, the employer shall be responsible for ensuring that 
     the facility or real property complies with substantive 
     Federal and State safety and health standards applicable to 
     that housing. Prior to occupancy by such workers, the 
     facility or real property shall be certified by a State or 
     local health authority or other appropriate agency as meeting 
     applicable safety and health standards. Written notice shall 
     be posted in the facility or real property, prior to and 
     throughout the occupancy by such workers, informing such 
     workers that the applicable safety and health standards are 
     met.
       (2) If the employer does not own or control the facility or 
     real property which is used for housing traveling sales crew 
     workers, the employer shall be responsible for ensuring that 
     the owner or operator of such facility or real property 
     complies with substantive Federal and State safety and health 
     standards applicable to that housing. Such assurance by the 
     employer shall include the verification that the owner or 
     operator of such facility or real property is licensed and 
     insured in accordance with all applicable State and local 
     laws. The employer shall obtain such assurance prior to 
     housing any workers in the facility or real property.
       (f) Insurance of Vehicles; Workers' Compensation 
     Insurance.--
       (1) Insurance.--An employer of traveling sales crew workers 
     shall ensure that there is in effect, for each vehicle used 
     to transport such workers, an insurance policy or a liability 
     bond which insures the employer against liability for damage 
     to persons and property arising from the ownership, 
     operation, or the causing to be operated of such vehicle for 
     such purpose. The level of insurance or liability bond 
     required shall be determined by the Secretary considering at 
     least the factors set forth in subsection (d)(2) and any 
     relevant State law.
       (2) Workers' compensation.--If an employer of traveling 
     sales crew workers is the employer of such workers for 
     purposes of a State workers' compensation law and such 
     employer provides workers' compensation coverage for such 
     workers as provided for by such State law, the following 
     modifications to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall 
     apply:
       (A) No insurance policy or liability bond shall be required 
     of the employer if such workers are transported only under 
     circumstances for which there is workers' compensation 
     coverage under such State law.
       (B) An insurance policy or liability bond shall be required 
     of the employer for all circumstances under which workers' 
     compensation coverage for the transportation of such workers 
     is not provided under such State law.

     SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

       (a) Criminal Sanctions.--An employer who willfully and 
     knowingly violates this title, or any regulation promulgated 
     under this title, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or 
     imprisoned for not to exceed 1 year, or both. Upon conviction 
     for any subsequent violation of this title, or any such 
     regulation, an employer shall be fined not more than $50,000 
     or imprisoned for not to exceed 3 years, or both.
       (b) Judicial Enforcement.--
       (1) Injunctive relief.--The Secretary may petition any 
     appropriate district court of the United States for temporary 
     or permanent injunctive relief if the Secretary determines 
     that this title, or any regulation promulgated under this 
     title, has been violated.
       (2) Solicitor of labor.--Except as provided in section 
     518(a) of title 28, United States Code, relating to 
     litigation before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor of Labor 
     may appear for and represent the Secretary in any civil 
     litigation brought under this title, but all such litigation 
     shall be subject to the direction and control of the Attorney 
     General.
       (c) Administrative Sanctions; Proceedings.--
       (1) Civil money penalty.--Subject to paragraph (2), an 
     employer that violates this title, or any regulation 
     promulgated under this title, may be assessed a civil money 
     penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation.
       (2) Determination of penalty.--In determining the amount of 
     any penalty to be assessed under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall take into account--
       (A) the previous record of the employer in terms of 
     compliance with this title and the regulations promulgated 
     under this title; and
       (B) the gravity of the violation.
       (3) Proceedings.--
       (A) In general.--An employer that is assessed a civil money 
     penalty under this subsection shall be afforded an 
     opportunity for an agency hearing, upon request made within 
     30 days after the date of issuance of the notice of 
     assessment. In such hearing, all issues shall be determined 
     on the record pursuant to section 554 of title 5, United 
     States Code. If no hearing is requested as provided for in 
     this paragraph, the assessment shall constitute a final and 
     unappealable order.
       (B) Administrative law judge.--If a hearing is requested 
     under subparagraph (A), the initial agency decision shall be 
     made by an administrative law judge, and such decision shall 
     become the final order unless the Secretary modifies or 
     vacates this decision. Notice of intent to modify or vacate 
     the decision of the administrative law judge shall be issued 
     to the parties within 90 days after the decision of the 
     administrative law judge. A final order which takes effect 
     under this paragraph shall be subject to review only as 
     provided for under subparagraph (C).
       (C) Review.--An employer against whom an order imposing a 
     civil money penalty has been entered after an agency hearing 
     under this section may obtain review by the United States 
     district court for any district in which the employer is 
     located, or the United States District Court for the District 
     of Columbia, by filing a notice of appeal in such court 
     within 30 days from the date of such order and simultaneously 
     sending a copy of such notice by registered mail to the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall promptly certify and file in 
     such court the record upon which the penalty was imposed. The 
     findings of the Secretary shall be set aside only if found to 
     be unsupported by substantial evidence as provided by section 
     706(2)(E) of title 5, United States Code. Any final decision, 
     order, or judgment of such District Court concerning such 
     review shall be subject to appeal as provided in chapter 83 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (D) Failure to pay.--If any person fails to pay an 
     assessment after it has become a final and unappealable order 
     under this paragraph, or after the court has entered final 
     judgment in favor of the agency, the Secretary shall refer 
     the matter to the Attorney General, who shall recover the 
     amount assessed by action in the appropriate United States 
     district court. In such action, the validity and 
     appropriateness of the final order imposing the penalty shall 
     not be subject to review.
       (E) Payment of penalties.--All penalties collected under 
     authority of this section shall be paid into the Treasury of 
     the United States.
       (d) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) in general.--Any traveling sales crew worker aggrieved 
     by a violation of this title, or any regulation promulgated 
     under this title, by an employer may file suit in any 
     district court of the United States having jurisdiction over 
     the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy and 
     without regard to exhaustion of any alternative 
     administrative remedies provided for in this title.
       (2) Damages.--
       (A) In general.--If the court in an action under paragraph 
     (1) finds that the defendant intentionally violated a 
     provision of this Act, or a regulation promulgated under this 
     Act, the court may award--
       (i) damages up to and including an amount equal to the 
     amount of actual damages;
       (ii) statutory damages of not more than $1,000 per 
     plaintiff per violation or, if such complaint is certified as 
     a class action, not more than $1,000,000 for all plaintiffs 
     in the class; or
       (iii) other equitable relief.
       (B) Determination of amount.--In determining the amount of 
     damages to be awarded under subparagraph (A), the court may 
     consider whether an attempt was made to resolve the issues in 
     dispute before the resort to litigation.
       (C) Workers' compensation.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, where a State workers' compensation law is 
     applicable and coverage is provided for a traveling sales 
     crew worker, the workers' compensation benefits shall be the 
     exclusive remedy for loss of such worker under this title in 
     the case of bodily injury or death in accordance with such 
     State's workers' compensation law.
       (ii) Limitation.--The exclusive remedy provided for under 
     clause (i) precludes the

[[Page 31097]]

     recovery under subparagraph (A) of actual damages for loss 
     from an injury or death but does not preclude recovery under 
     such subparagraph for statutory damages (as provided for in 
     clause (iii)) or equitable relief, except that such relief 
     shall not include back or front pay or in any manner, 
     directly or indirectly, expand or otherwise alter or affect--

       (I) a recovery under a State workers' compensation law; or
       (II) rights conferred under a State workers' compensation 
     law.

       (iii) Statutory damages.--In an action in which a claim for 
     actual damages is precluded as provided for in clause (ii), 
     the court shall award statutory damages of not more than 
     $20,000 per plaintiff per violation or, in the case of a 
     class action, not more than $1,000,000 for all plaintiffs in 
     the class, if the court finds any of the following:

       (I) The defendant violated section 204(d) by knowingly 
     requiring or permitting a driver to drive a vehicle for the 
     transportation of the plaintiff or plaintiffs while under the 
     influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in 
     section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802)), the defendant had actual knowledge of the driver's 
     condition, such violation resulted in the injury or death of 
     the plaintiff or plaintiffs, and such injury or death arose 
     out of and in the course of employment as defined under the 
     State worker's compensation law.
       (II) The defendant was found by the court or was determined 
     in a previous administrative or judicial proceeding to have 
     violated a safety standard prescribed by the Secretary under 
     section 204 and such violation resulted in the injury or 
     death of the plaintiff or plaintiffs.
       (III) The defendant willfully disabled or removed a safety 
     device prescribed by the Secretary under section 204, or the 
     defendant in conscious disregard of the requirements of such 
     section failed to provide a safety device required by the 
     Secretary, and such disablement, removal, or failure to 
     provide a safety device resulted in the injury or death of 
     the plaintiff or plaintiffs.
       (IV) At the time of the violation of section 204, which 
     resulted in the injury or death of the plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs, the employer or the supervisor of the traveling 
     sales crew did not have a Certificate of Registration in 
     accordance with section 203.

       (iv) Determination of amount.--For purposes of determining 
     the amount of statutory damages due to a plaintiff under this 
     subparagraph, multiple infractions of a single provision of 
     this title, or of regulations promulgated under this title, 
     shall constitute a single violation.
       (D) Attorney's fee.--The court shall, in addition to any 
     judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs under this 
     paragraph, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by 
     the defendant or defendants, and costs of the action.
       (E) Appeals.--Any civil action brought under this 
     subsection shall be subject to appeal as provided for in 
     chapter 83 of title 28, United States Code.
       (e) Discrimination Prohibited.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall intimidate, threaten, 
     restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner 
     discriminate against any traveling sales crew worker because 
     such worker has, with just cause, filed any complaint or 
     instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under 
     or related to this title, or has testified or is about to 
     testify in any such proceedings, or because of the exercise, 
     with just cause, by such worker on behalf of the worker or 
     others of any right or protection afforded by this title.
       (2) Complaint.--
       (A) In general.--A traveling sales crew worker who 
     believes, with just cause, that such worker has been 
     discriminated against in violation of this subsection may, 
     within 12 months of the date of such violation, file a 
     complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination.
       (B) Investigation.--Upon receipt of a complaint under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall cause such 
     investigation to be made as the determines to be appropriate.
       (C) Actions.--If upon an investigation under subparagraph 
     (B), the Secretary determines that the provisions of this 
     subsection have been violated, the Secretary shall bring an 
     action in any appropriate United States district court 
     against the person involved.
       (D) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (C), the 
     United States district court shall have jurisdiction, for 
     cause shown, to restrain violations of this subsection and 
     order all appropriate relief, including rehiring or 
     reinstatement of the worker, with back pay, or damages.
       (f) Waiver of Rights.--Agreements by workers purporting to 
     waive or to modify their rights under this title shall be 
     void as contrary to public policy, except that a waiver or 
     modification of rights in favor of the Secretary shall be 
     valid for purposes of enforcement of this title.
       (g) Authority to Obtain Information.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out this title, the Secretary, 
     either pursuant to a complaint or otherwise, shall, as may be 
     appropriate, investigate and, in connection with such 
     investigation, enter and inspect such places (including 
     housing and vehicles) and such records (and make 
     transcriptions thereof), question such persons and gather 
     such information to determine compliance with this title, or 
     regulations promulgated under this title.
       (2) Production and receipt of evidence.--The Secretary may 
     issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses or the production of any evidence in connection 
     with investigations under paragraph (1). The Secretary may 
     administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. 
     For the purpose of any hearing or investigation provided for 
     in this title, the authority contained in sections 9 and 10 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 49 and 50), 
     relating to the attendance of witnesses and the production of 
     books, papers, and documents, shall be available to the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     investigations under paragraph (1) in a manner which protects 
     the confidentiality of any complainant or other party who 
     provides information to the Secretary in good faith.
       (4) Violation.--It shall be violation of this title for any 
     person to unlawfully resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or 
     interfere with any official of the Department of Labor 
     assigned to perform any investigation, inspection, or law 
     enforcement function pursuant to this title during the 
     performance of such duties.
       (h) State Laws and Regulations; Government Agencies.--
       (1) Relation to state laws.--This title is intended to 
     supplement State law, and compliance with this title shall 
     not be construed to excuse any person from compliance with 
     appropriate State laws and regulations.
       (2) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into agreements 
     with Federal and State agencies--
       (A) to use their facilities and services;
       (B) to delegate to Federal and State agencies such 
     authority, other than rulemaking, as may be useful in 
     carrying out this title; and
       (C) to allocate or transfer funds to, or otherwise pay or 
     reimburse, such agencies for expenses incurred pursuant to 
     agreements under this paragraph.
       (i) Rules and Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this 
     title, consistent with the requirements of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1990. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 501 I 
Street in Sacramento, California, as the ``Joe Serna, Jr. United States 
Courthouse and Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


      joe serna, jr. united states courthouse and federal building

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to honor one of the finest mayors to serve in California. My state, 
particularly my constituents in Sacramento lost a great Californian 
this fall with the passing of Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna.
  My bill will name the new Federal Courthouse at 501 I Street the 
``Joe Serna, Jr. United States Courthouse and Federal Building'' in 
honor of his contributions to Sacramento and the working men and women 
of California. Joe Serna was a man of great vision, courage, energy, 
warmth, and humor.
  He was also a living embodiment of the American Dream: a first-
generation American who helped to reshape the capital of our nation's 
largest state.
  Mayor Serna was born in 1939, the son of Mexican immigrants. As the 
oldest of four children, Joe grew up in a bunkhouse and worked with his 
family in the beet fields around Lodi.
  Mayor Serna never forgot his roots. After attending Sacramento City 
College and graduating from California State University, Sacramento, he 
served in the Peace Corps and went to work for the United Farm Workers, 
where Cesar Chavez became his mentor and role model.
  After serving on the city's redevelopment agency in the 1970s, Mayor 
Serna was elected to the Council himself in 1981. He was elected mayor 
in 1992 and re-elected in 1996, winning both races by wide margins. 
Throughout his terms in office, he continued to work as a professor of 
government and ethnic studies at his alma mater, Cal State Sacramento.
  Mayor Serna virtually rebuilt the city of Sacramento. He forged 
public-private partnerships to redevelop the downtown, revitalize the 
neighborhoods, and reform the public school system. He presided over an 
urban renaissance that transformed Sacramento

[[Page 31098]]

into a dynamic modern metropolis. The new Sacramento Federal Building 
is a visible reminder of the redevelopment of Sacramento. Naming this 
building after Mayor Serna would be a fitting tribute.
  Mayor Serna died as he lived: with great strength and dignity. Last 
month, as he publicly discussed his impending death from cancer, he 
said, ``I was supposed to live and die as a farm worker, not as a mayor 
and a college professor. I have everything to be thankful for. I have 
the people to thank for allowing me to be their mayor. I have society 
to thank for the opportunity it has given me.''
  Mr. President, it is we who are thankful today for having had such a 
man serve the people of California, and I ask my colleagues to support 
this legislation to honor the legacy of Joe Serna, Jr.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1990

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOE SERNA, JR. UNITED STATES 
                   COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING.

       The Federal building located at 501 I Street in Sacramento, 
     California, shall be known and designated as the ``Joe Serna, 
     Jr. United States Courthouse and Federal Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the Joe Serna, Jr. United States Courthouse and Federal 
     Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1992. A bill to provide States with loans to enable State entities 
or local governments within the States to make interest payments on 
qualified school construction bonds issued by the State entities or 
local governments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


  building, renovating, improving, and constructing kids' schools act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Building, 
Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''--
legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 
school construction, renovation, and repair. The legislation would 
accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find 
the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active 
federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about 
an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and 
local responsibility.
  Mr. President, the condition of many of our nation's existing public 
schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and 
classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of 
all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement.
  As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the 
average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings 
beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES 
brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest 
condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have 
either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980.
  Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, 
but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due 
to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to 
the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by 
the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, 
which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 
million by 2008.
  Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school 
renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to 
bring our nation's schools into good overall condition. Nowhere is this 
cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, where a 
recently-completed study by the Maine Department of Education and the 
State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the 
state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot allow our nation's schools to fall 
into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in 
classrooms that have leaky ceilings or rotting walls. We cannot ignore 
the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in 
K-12 schools continues to grow.
  Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these 
facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments 
can bear in a short period of time, I believe the federal government 
can and should assist Maine and other state and local governments in 
addressing this growing national crisis.
  Admittedly, not all members support strong federal intervention in 
what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, 
many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for 
school construction or other local educational needs would be for the 
federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the 
cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act was signed into 
law more than 20 years ago, but the federal government has fallen 
woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently 
increasing its share to approximately 10 percent.
  Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the 
federal government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing 
less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. 
Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have 
increased federal funding for IDEA by a full 85 percent over the past 
three years, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent 
federal commitment in the near future.
  Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and 
thereby free up local resources to address local needs, I believe the 
federal government can do more to assist state and local governments in 
addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local 
control.
   Mr. President, the legislation I am offering today--the ``BRICKS 
Act''--will do just that . Specifically, it addresses our nation's 
school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging 
the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in 
school construction and those who do not.
  First, my legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to 
support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. 
By designating that these loans may only be used to pay the interests 
owed to bondholders on new, 15-year school construction bonds that are 
issued by state and local governments through the year 2002, the 
federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and 
localities that would not otherwise be made.
  Of importance, these loan moneys--which will be distributed on an 
annual basis using the Title I distribution formula--will become 
available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the federal 
loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and 
not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have 
occurred in the absence of the loans, there will be no requirement that 
states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even 
assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot.
  Second, my bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal 
government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the 
Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security 
surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future.
  Specifically, my bill would make these loans to states from the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the 
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to

[[Page 31099]]

hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the 
fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is 
foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in 
exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide 
stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line 
of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso.
  In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, 
some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the 
fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor 
Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund 
should be liquidated.
  Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over 
the ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can 
be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help 
America's schools.
  Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in 
loans provided by my legislation will be made from the ESF--an amount 
identical to the line of credit that was extended to Mexico by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of importance, these loans will be 
made from the ESF on a progressive, annual basis--not in a sudden or 
immediate manner. Furthermore, these monies will be repaid to the fund 
with interest, to ensure that the ESF is compensated for the loans it 
makes.
  Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends plus 
interest, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that state 
and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest--or 
that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable time line. 
Specifically, my bill sets the interest rate for the loans at the 
average prime lending rate for the year in which the bonds are issued, 
with a cap of 4.5 percent--an amount that is lower than the prime 
lending rate in any of the previous 15 years. Furthermore, no payments 
will be owed--and no interest will accrue--until 2005, unless the 
federal government fulfills its commitment to fund 40 percent of the 
cost of special education prior to that time.
  Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to 
the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school 
construction, renovation, and repair.
   Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local 
governments to support school construction, I believe that my bill 
represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national 
problem.
  For those who support a direct, active federal role in school 
construction, my bill provides substantial federal assistance by 
dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school 
construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal 
government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local 
responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs 
that the monies provided to states will be repaid with interest, and 
that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive 
their share of these monies.
   Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS 
Act''--legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing 
philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if 
we work together, we can make a tangible difference in the condition of 
America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological 
battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1992

       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 ``Building, Renovating, 
     Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress make the following findings:
       (1) According to a 1999 issue brief prepared by the 
     National Center for Education Statistics, the average public 
     school in America is 42 years old, and school buildings begin 
     rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, 29 percent 
     of all public schools are in the oldest condition, meaning 
     that the schools were built before 1970 and have either never 
     been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980.
       (2) According to reports issued by the General Accounting 
     Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, it would cost $112,000,000,000 
     to bring the Nation's schools into good overall condition, 
     and one-third of all public schools need extensive repair or 
     replacement.
       (3) Many schools do not have the appropriate infrastructure 
     to support computers and other technologies that are 
     necessary to prepare students for the jobs of the 21st 
     century.
       (4) Without impeding on local control, the Federal 
     Government appropriately can assist State and local 
     governments in addressing school construction, renovation, 
     and repair needs by providing low-interest loans for purposes 
     of paying interest on related bonds.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bond.--The term ``bond'' includes any obligation.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' includes the chief 
     executive officer of a State.
       (3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given to such term by section 14101 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (4) Public school facility.--The term public school 
     facility shall not include--
       (A) any stadium or other facility primarily used for 
     athletic contests or exhibitions, or other events for which 
     admission is charged to the general public; or
       (B) any facility which is not owned by a State or local 
     government or any agency or instrumentality of a State or 
     local government.
       (5) Qualified school construction bond.--The term 
     ``qualified school construction bond'' means any bond issued 
     as part of an issue if--
       (A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are to 
     be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a 
     public school facility or for the acquisition of land on 
     which such a facility is to be constructed with part of the 
     proceeds of such issue;
       (B) the bond is issued by a State entity or local 
     government;
       (C) the issuer designates such bonds for purposes of this 
     section; and
       (D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue does 
     not exceed 15 years.
       (6) Stabilization fund.--The term ``stabilization fund'' 
     means the stabilization fund established under section 5302 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic 
     of Palau.

     SEC. 4. LOANS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND INTEREST PAYMENTS.

       (a) Loan Authority.--
       (1) In general.--From funds made available to a State under 
     section 5(b) the State shall make loans to State entities or 
     local governments within the State to enable the entities and 
     governments to make annual interest payments on qualified 
     school construction bonds that are issued by the entities and 
     governments not later than December 31, 2002.
       (2) Requests.--The Governor of each State desiring 
     assistance under this Act shall submit a request to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury at such time and in such manner as 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may require.
       (b) Loan Repayment.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State entity 
     or local government that receives a loan under this Act shall 
     repay to the stabilization fund the amount of the loan, plus 
     interest, at the average prime lending rate for the year in 
     which the bond is issued, not to exceed 4.5 percent.
       (2) Exception.--A State entity or local government shall 
     not repay the amount of a loan made under this Act, plus 
     interest, and the interest on a loan made under this Act 
     shall not accrue, prior to January 1, 2005, unless the amount 
     appropriated to carry out part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for any 
     fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2006 is sufficient to fully 
     fund such part for the fiscal year at the originally promised 
     level, which promised level would provide to each State 40 
     percent of the average per-pupil expenditure for providing 
     special education and related services for each child with a 
     disability in the State.
       (c) Federal Responsibilities.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Secretary of Education--
       (1) jointly shall be responsible for ensuring that funds 
     provided under this Act are properly distributed;
       (2) shall ensure that funds provided under this Act only 
     are used to pay the interest on qualified school construction 
     bonds; and

[[Page 31100]]

       (3) shall not have authority to approve or disapprove 
     school construction plans assisted pursuant to this Act, 
     except to ensure that funds made available under this Act are 
     used only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of 
     school construction, rehabilitation, and repair in the State 
     that would have occurred in the absence of such funds.

     SEC. 5. AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO EACH STATE.

       (a) Reservation for Indians.--From $20,000,000,000 of the 
     funds in the stabilization fund, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall make available $400,000,000 to Indian tribes 
     for loans to enable the Indian tribes to make annual interest 
     payments on qualified school construction bonds in accordance 
     with the requirements of this Act that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury determines appropriate.
       (b) Amounts Available.--
       (1) In general.--From $20,000,000,000 of the funds in the 
     stabilization fund that are not reserved under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to 
     each State submitting a request under section 4(a)(2) an 
     amount that bears the same relation to such remainder as the 
     amount the State received under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.) for fiscal year 2000 bears to the amount 
     received by all States under such part for such year.
       (2) Disbursal.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     disburse the amount made available to a State under paragraph 
     (1), on an annual basis, during the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2000, and ending September 30, 2017.
       (c) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Education jointly shall notify each State of the 
     amount of funds the State may borrow under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 1993. A bill to reform Government information security by 
strengthening information security practices throughout the Federal 
Government; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              government information security act of 1999

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on 
behalf of myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
Senator Lieberman, the Committee's ranking minority member, on an issue 
of great importance to our committee and the nation--the security of 
Federal government computer systems.
  Over the last decade, the Federal Government, like most private-
sector organizations, has become enormously dependent on interconnected 
computer systems, including the Internet, to support its operations and 
account for its assets. This explosion in interconnectivity has 
resulted in many benefits. In particular, it has increased 
productivity, made enormous amounts of useful information instantly 
available to millions of people, and contributed to the economic boom 
of the 1990s.
  However, the factors that generate these benefits--widely accessible 
data and instantaneous communication--also increase the risks that 
information will be misused, possibly to commit fraud or other crimes, 
or that sensitive information will be in appropriately disclosed. In 
addition, our government's, as well as our nation's, dependence on this 
computer support makes it susceptible to devastating disruptions in 
critical services, as well as in computer-based safety and financial 
controls. Such disruptions could be caused by sabotage, natural 
disasters, or widespread system faults, as illustrated by the Y2K date 
conversion concerns.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee spent considerable time during the 
last Congress on this issue with a specific emphasis on information 
security and cyberterrorism. We uncovered and identified failures of 
information security affecting our international security and 
vulnerability to domestic and international terrorism. We highlighted 
our nation's vulnerability to computer attacks--from international and 
domestic terrorists to crime rings to everyday hackers. We directed GAO 
to prepare a ``best practices'' guide on computer security for Federal 
agencies to use, and we asked GAO to study computer security 
vulnerabilities at several Federal agencies including the Internal 
Revenue Service, the State Department, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the Veterans' 
Administration.
  As a result of its work, GAO identified many specific weaknesses in 
agency controls and concluded that the underlying cause was inadequate 
security program planning and management. In particular, agencies were 
addressing identified weaknesses on a piecemeal basis rather than 
proactively addressing systemic causes that diminished security 
effectiveness throughout the agency.
  That is not to say that nothing is being done. Many in the executive 
branch recognize that action is needed to improve Federal information 
security, and several efforts have been initiated. For example, in May 
1998, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 directed the National 
Security Council to lead a variety of efforts intended to improve 
critical infrastructure protection, including protection of Federal 
agency information infrastructures, and required major agencies to 
develop plans to protect their own critical computer-based systems.
  But despite a flurry of activity in this area and a number of 
statutes already on the books which deal with the issues, we have 
concluded that a more complete and meaningful statutory foundation for 
improvement is needed. The primary objective of this legislation is to 
update existing information security statutory requirements to address 
the management challenges associated with operating in the current 
interconnected computing environment.
  We begin where the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 left off. These laws, and the computer Security Act 
of 1987, provided the basic framework for managing information 
security. This legislation which we introduce today will update and 
clarify existing requirements and responsibilities of Federal agencies 
in dealing with information security.
  The Government Information Security Act:
  Strengthens the Office of Management and Budget's information 
security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act;
  Establishes Federal agency accountability for information security as 
needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the 
agency by creating a set of management requirements derived from GAO 
``Best Practices'' audit work;
  Requires agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their 
information security programs and practices to assess compliance with 
authorized requirements and to test effectiveness of information 
security control techniques;
  Provides for the application of a unified and logical set of 
governmentwide controls by including national security systems within 
the application of the legislation; and
  Focuses on the importance of training programs and governmentwide 
incident handling.
  We recognize that these aren't the only things that need to be done. 
Some have suggested we provide specific standards in the legislation. 
Others have recommended we establish a new position of a National Chief 
Information Officer. These and, no doubt, many other proposals will be 
considered as we debate this important issue. But this legislation is 
intended as a good first step to better define roles among Federal 
agencies in order to develop a fully secure government.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill we are 
introducing be printed in the Record.

                                S. 1993

       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 ``Government Information 
     Security Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY.

       Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:

                 ``SUBCHAPTER II--INFORMATION SECURITY

     ``Sec. 3531. Purposes

       ``The purposes of this subchapter are to--
       ``(1) provide a comprehensive framework for establishing 
     and ensuring the effectiveness of controls over information 
     resources that support Federal operations and assets;

[[Page 31101]]

       ``(2)(A) recognize the highly networked nature of the 
     Federal computing environment including the need for Federal 
     Government interoperability and, in the implementation of 
     improved security management measures, assure that 
     opportunities for interoperability are not adversely 
     affected; and
       ``(B) provide effective governmentwide management and 
     oversight of the related information security risks, 
     including coordination of information security efforts 
     throughout the civilian, national security, and law 
     enforcement communities;
       ``(3) provide for development and maintenance of minimum 
     controls required to protect Federal information and 
     information systems; and
       ``(4) provide a mechanism for improved oversight of Federal 
     agency information security programs.

     ``Sec. 3532. Definitions

       ``(a) Except as provided under subsection (b), the 
     definitions under section 3502 shall apply to this 
     subchapter.
       ``(b) As used in this subchapter the term `information 
     technology' has the meaning given that term in section 5002 
     of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).

     ``Sec. 3533. Authority and functions of the Director

       ``(a)(1) Consistent with subchapter I, the Director shall 
     establish governmentwide policies for the management of 
     programs that support the cost-effective security of Federal 
     information systems by promoting security as an integral 
     component of each agency's business operations.
       ``(2) Policies under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) be founded on a continuing risk management cycle that 
     recognizes the need to--
       ``(i) identify, assess, and understand risk; and
       ``(ii) determine security needs commensurate with the level 
     of risk;
       ``(B) implement controls that adequately address the risk;
       ``(C) promote continuing awareness of information security 
     risk;
       ``(D) continually monitor and evaluate policy; and
       ``(E) control effectiveness of information security 
     practices.
       ``(b) The authority under subsection (a) includes the 
     authority to--
       ``(1) oversee and develop policies, principles, standards, 
     and guidelines for the handling of Federal information and 
     information resources to improve the efficiency and 
     effectiveness of governmental operations, including 
     principles, policies, and guidelines for the implementation 
     of agency responsibilities under applicable law for ensuring 
     the privacy, confidentiality, and security of Federal 
     information;
       ``(2) consistent with the standards and guidelines 
     promulgated under section 5131 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 
     1996 (40 U.S.C. 1441) and sections 5 and 6 of the Computer 
     Security Act of 1987 (40 U.S.C. 759 note; Public Law 100-235; 
     101 Stat. 1729), require Federal agencies to identify and 
     afford security protections commensurate with the risk and 
     magnitude of the harm resulting from the loss, misuse, or 
     unauthorized access to or modification of information 
     collected or maintained by or on behalf of an agency;
       ``(3) direct the heads of agencies to coordinate such 
     agencies and coordinate with industry to--
       ``(A) identify, use, and share best security practices; and
       ``(B) develop voluntary consensus-based standards for 
     security controls, in a manner consistent with section 
     2(b)(13) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)(13));
       ``(4) oversee the development and implementation of 
     standards and guidelines relating to security controls for 
     Federal computer systems by the Secretary of Commerce through 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology under 
     section 5131 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 
     1441) and section 20 of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3);
       ``(5) oversee and coordinate compliance with this section 
     in a manner consistent with--
       ``(A) sections 552 and 552a of title 5;
       ``(B) sections 20 and 21 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4);
       ``(C) section 5131 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 
     U.S.C. 1441);
       ``(D) sections 5 and 6 of the Computer Security Act of 1987 
     (40 U.S.C. 759 note; Public Law 100-235; 101 Stat. 1729); and
       ``(E) related information management laws; and
       ``(6) take any authorized action that the Director 
     considers appropriate, including any action involving the 
     budgetary process or appropriations management process, to 
     enforce accountability of the head of an agency for 
     information resources management and for the investments made 
     by the agency in information technology, including--
       ``(A) recommending a reduction or an increase in any amount 
     for information resources that the head of the agency 
     proposes for the budget submitted to Congress under section 
     1105(a) of title 31;
       ``(B) reducing or otherwise adjusting apportionments and 
     reapportionments of appropriations for information resources; 
     and
       ``(C) using other authorized administrative controls over 
     appropriations to restrict the availability of funds for 
     information resources.
       ``(c) The authority under this section may be delegated 
     only to the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 
     Management and Budget.

     ``Sec. 3534. Federal agency responsibilities

       ``(a) The head of each agency shall--
       ``(1) be responsible for--
       ``(A) adequately protecting the integrity, confidentiality, 
     and availability of information and information systems 
     supporting agency operations and assets; and
       ``(B) developing and implementing information security 
     policies, procedures, and control techniques sufficient to 
     afford security protections commensurate with the risk and 
     magnitude of the harm resulting from unauthorized disclosure, 
     disruption, modification, or destruction of information 
     collected or maintained by or for the agency;
       ``(2) ensure that each senior program manager is 
     responsible for--
       ``(A) assessing the information security risk associated 
     with the operations and assets of such manager;
       ``(B) determining the levels of information security 
     appropriate to protect the operations and assets of such 
     manager; and
       ``(C) periodically testing and evaluating information 
     security controls and techniques;
       ``(3) delegate to the agency Chief Information Officer 
     established under section 3506, or a comparable official in 
     an agency not covered by such section, the authority to 
     administer all functions under this subchapter including--
       ``(A) designating a senior agency information security 
     officer;
       ``(B) developing and maintaining an agencywide information 
     security program as required under subsection (b);
       ``(C) ensuring that the agency effectively implements and 
     maintains information security policies, procedures, and 
     control techniques;
       ``(D) training and overseeing personnel with significant 
     responsibilities for information security with respect to 
     such responsibilities; and
       ``(E) assisting senior program managers concerning 
     responsibilities under paragraph (2);
       ``(4) ensure that the agency has trained personnel 
     sufficient to assist the agency in complying with the 
     requirements of this subchapter and related policies, 
     procedures, standards, and guidelines; and
       ``(5) ensure that the agency Chief Information Officer, in 
     coordination with senior program managers, periodically--
       ``(A)(i) evaluates the effectiveness of the agency 
     information security program, including testing control 
     techniques; and
       ``(ii) implements appropriate remedial actions based on 
     that evaluation; and
       ``(B) reports to the agency head on--
       ``(i) the results of such tests and evaluations; and
       ``(ii) the progress of remedial actions.
       ``(b)(1) Each agency shall develop and implement an 
     agencywide information security program to provide 
     information security for the operations and assets of the 
     agency, including information security provided or managed by 
     another agency.
       ``(2) Each program under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) periodic assessments of information security risks 
     that consider internal and external threats to--
       ``(i) the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of 
     systems; and
       ``(ii) data supporting critical operations and assets;
       ``(B) policies and procedures that--
       ``(i) are based on the risk assessments required under 
     paragraph (1) that cost-effectively reduce information 
     security risks to an acceptable level; and
       ``(ii) ensure compliance with--
       ``(I) the requirements of this subchapter;
       ``(II) policies and procedures as may be prescribed by the 
     Director; and
       ``(III) any other applicable requirements;
       ``(C) security awareness training to inform personnel of--
       ``(i) information security risks associated with personnel 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) responsibilities of personnel in complying with 
     agency policies and procedures designed to reduce such risks;
       ``(D)(i) periodic management testing and evaluation of the 
     effectiveness of information security policies and 
     procedures; and
       ``(ii) a process for ensuring remedial action to address 
     any deficiencies; and
       ``(E) procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding 
     to security incidents, including--
       ``(i) mitigating risks associated with such incidents 
     before substantial damage occurs;
       ``(ii) notifying and consulting with law enforcement 
     officials and other offices and authorities; and
       ``(iii) notifying and consulting with an office designated 
     by the Administrator of General Services within the General 
     Services Administration.
       ``(3) Each program under this subsection is subject to the 
     approval of the Director and is required to be reviewed at 
     least annually by agency program officials in consultation 
     with the Chief Information Officer.

[[Page 31102]]

       ``(c)(1) Each agency shall examine the adequacy and 
     effectiveness of information security policies, procedures, 
     and practices in plans and reports relating to--
       ``(A) annual agency budgets;
       ``(B) information resources management under the Paperwork 
     Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 101 note);
       ``(C) program performance under sections 1105 and 1115 
     through 1119 of title 31, and sections 2801 through 2805 of 
     title 39; and
       ``(D) financial management under--
       ``(i) chapter 9 of title 31, United States Code, and the 
     Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 501 note; 
     Public Law 101-576) (and the amendments made by that Act);
       ``(ii) the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 
     1996 (31 U.S.C. 3512 note) (and the amendments made by that 
     Act); and
       ``(iii) the internal controls conducted under section 3512 
     of title 31.
       ``(2) Any deficiency in a policy, procedure, or practice 
     identified under paragraph (1) shall be reported as a 
     material weakness in reporting required under the applicable 
     provision of law under paragraph (1).

     ``Sec. 3535. Annual independent evaluation

       ``(a)(1) Each year each agency shall have an independent 
     evaluation performed of the information security program and 
     practices of that agency.
       ``(2) Each evaluation under this section shall include--
       ``(A) an assessment of compliance with--
       ``(i) the requirements of this subchapter; and
       ``(ii) related information security policies, procedures, 
     standards, and guidelines; and
       ``(B) tests of the effectiveness of information security 
     control techniques.
       ``(b)(1) For agencies with Inspectors General appointed 
     under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), 
     annual evaluations required under this section shall be 
     performed by the Inspector General or by an independent 
     external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General of 
     the agency.
       ``(2) For any agency to which paragraph (1) does not apply, 
     the head of the agency shall contract with an independent 
     external auditor to perform the evaluation.
       ``(3) An evaluation of agency information security programs 
     and practices performed by the Comptroller General may be in 
     lieu of the evaluation required under this section.
       ``(c) Not later than March 1, 2001, and every March 1 
     thereafter, the results of an evaluation required under this 
     section shall be submitted to the Director.
       ``(d) Each year the Comptroller General shall--
       ``(1) review the evaluations required under this section 
     and other information security evaluation results; and
       ``(2) report to Congress regarding the adequacy of agency 
     information programs and practices.
       ``(e) Agencies and auditors shall take appropriate actions 
     to ensure the protection of information, the disclosure of 
     which may adversely affect information security. Such 
     protections shall be commensurate with the risk and comply 
     with all applicable laws.''.

     SEC. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CERTAIN AGENCIES.

       (a) Department of Commerce.--The Secretary of Commerce, 
     through the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     and with technical assistance from the National Security 
     Agency, shall--
       (1) develop, issue, review, and update standards and 
     guidance for the security of information in Federal computer 
     systems, including development of methods and techniques for 
     security systems and validation programs;
       (2) develop, issue, review, and update guidelines for 
     training in computer security awareness and accepted computer 
     security practices, with assistance from the Office of 
     Personnel Management;
       (3) provide agencies with guidance for security planning to 
     assist in the development of applications and system security 
     plans for such agencies;
       (4) provide guidance and assistance to agencies concerning 
     cost-effective controls when interconnecting with other 
     systems; and
       (5) evaluate information technologies to assess security 
     vulnerabilities and alert Federal agencies of such 
     vulnerabilities.
       (b) Department of Justice.--The Department of Justice shall 
     review and update guidance to agencies on--
       (1) legal remedies regarding security incidents and ways to 
     report to and work with law enforcement agencies concerning 
     such incidents; and
       (2) permitted uses of security techniques and technologies.
       (c) General Services Administration.--The General Services 
     Administration shall--
       (1) review and update General Services Administration 
     guidance to agencies on addressing security considerations 
     when acquiring information technology; and
       (2) assist agencies in the acquisition of cost-effective 
     security products, services, and incident response 
     capabilities.
       (d) Office of Personnel Management.--The Office of 
     Personnel Management shall--
       (1) review and update Office of Personnel Management 
     regulations concerning computer security training for Federal 
     civilian employees; and
       (2) assist the Department of Commerce in updating and 
     maintaining guidelines for training in computer security 
     awareness and computer security best practices.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the table of sections--
       (A) by inserting after the chapter heading the following:

             ``SUBCHAPTER I--FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY'';

     and
       (B) by inserting after the item relating to section 3520 
     the following:

                 ``SUBCHAPTER II--INFORMATION SECURITY

``Sec.
``3531. Purposes.
``3532. Definitions.
``3533. Authority and functions of the Director.
``3534. Federal agency responsibilities.
``3535. Annual independent evaluation.'';
     and
       (2) by inserting before section 3501 the following:

             ``SUBCHAPTER I--FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY''.

       (b) References to Chapter 35.--Chapter 35 of title 44, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3501--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``chapter'' and inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (B) in paragraph (11), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (2) in section 3502, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``chapter'' and inserting ``subchapter'';
       (3) in section 3503, in subsection (b), by striking 
     ``chapter'' and inserting ``subchapter'';
       (4) in section 3504--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (C) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (5) in section 3505--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``chapter'' and inserting ``subchapter'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (C) in subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii), by striking ``chapter'' 
     and inserting ``subchapter'';
       (6) in section 3506--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (C) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (D) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (E) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (F) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``chapter, to'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter, to''; and
       (G) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (7) in section 3507--
       (A) in subsection (e)(3)(B), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (B) in subsection (h)(2)(B), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (C) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (D) in subsection (j)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (E) in subsection (j)(1)(B), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (F) in subsection (j)(2), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (8) in section 3509, by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``subchapter'';
       (9) in section 3512--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``chapter if'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter if''; and
       (B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (10) in section 3514--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (B) in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii), by striking ``chapter'' 
     and inserting ``subchapter'' each place it appears;
       (11) in section 3515, by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``subchapter'';
       (12) in section 3516, by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``subchapter'';
       (13) in section 3517(b), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (14) in section 3518--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'' each place it appears;
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (D) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter'';
       (E) in subsection (d), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (F) in subsection (e), by striking ``chapter'' and 
     inserting ``subchapter''; and
       (15) in section 3520, by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``subchapter''.

[[Page 31103]]



     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with 
Senator Thompson in introducing the Government Information Security Act 
of 1999. This bill would put a management structure in place for the 
implementation of risk-based computer security measures across the 
government.
  We are introducing this bill in the closing days of this session with 
the hope that it will serve as the basis for launching a discussion 
about the most effective ways to improve government's approach to 
computer security. We invite and look forward to comments from 
government agencies, industry and academic experts, think tanks and 
others who have been involved in this field.
  Like the rest of the nation,the government is increasingly dependent 
on computer and other electronic information systems to collect, 
analyze and preserve important data and perform vital tasks. Government 
computer systems are rife with sensitive information pertaining to the 
fundamentals of our existence--our national security, the strength of 
our economy, transportation and communications systems, and the 
personal lives of millions of individual citizens. The Department of 
Defense and other national security agencies control our weapons of 
mass destruction and track the offensive movements of enemy states 
through complex computer programs; the Internal Revenue Service 
maintains an automated systems wage information on every working 
American; the Federal Reserve calculates key economic indicators 
electronically and the Center for Disease Control relies on computers 
to tracks threats to the nation's public health.
  And yet, this computer-reliant infrastructure is frighteningly 
vulnerable to exploitation not only by trouble-makers and professional 
hackers but by organized crime and international terrorists. Indeed, a 
disruption of our communications, transportation and energy sections 
could prove as destructive as any conventional weapons attack to our 
ability to defend our privacy, our safety, even our freedom.
  Indeed, witnesses before the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
Congress testified that the government's reliance on computer systems 
is not matched by a concomitant growth in the security of those 
systems. A series of Government Accounting Office studies found 
government computer security so lax that it landed on the GAO's list of 
``high risk'' government programs. For example, this year, GAO reported 
that one of its test teams gained access to mission critical computer 
systems at NASA which would have allowed the team to control spacecraft 
or alter data returned from space. In May 1998, the GAO was able to 
gain unauthorized access to the State Department's networks which would 
have enabled GAO to modify, delete or download important data and 
shutdown services. And the GAO reported in September 1998 that 
inadequate information system controls by the Veterans Administration 
threatened the disruption or misuse of service delivery to the men and 
women who have fought our wars.
  Less significant on a global scale, but of utmost concern to 
individual citizens is the extent to which inadequate security leaves 
personal information, and therefore people, vulnerable to exposure and 
exploitation. Our legislation will address personal information 
maintained by the government such as benefits and tax data and 
demographics culled from personal information we supply to the Census 
Bureau.
  While the GAO's work is compelling, I am convinced by two other 
developments that legislation in this area needs to be addressed 
quickly. First, we have been intensely focused throughout the year on 
fixing the computer problems associated with Y2K. Ensuring that the 
information our government collects and produces is secure may seem 
similar to the Y2K issue because both reflect our dependency on 
computers and their vulnerability to programming failures and outside 
disruptions. The need for secure government computer systems, however, 
will not disappear in the first days and weeks of the year 2000. 
Indeed, it will be with us until we have a structure within the 
government dedicated to fixing these problems.
  Second,we have spent significant time this session digging into the 
Los Alamo National Laboratory espionage scandal and allegations that an 
employee improperly downloaded classified material to an unclassified 
computer. The Energy and Justice Departments are still looking into 
this breach of security, but it should focus everyone's attention on 
the vulnerability associated with extensive reliance computers and the 
undeniable need for improvements in how we manage and secure these 
systems.
  Mr. President, the goal of the bill we are introducing today is to 
protect the integrity, confidentiality and availability of information 
and ensure that critical improvements in the management of our computer 
security system take place. Specifically, our bill would:
  Require high-level accountability. The Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget will be accountable for overseeing policy while 
the agency heads will be accountable for developing specific security 
plans.
  Require agency heads to develop and implement security plans and 
policies based on the appropriate level of risk for the different type 
of information the agency maintains. We need to ensure that each 
agency's plan reflects an understanding that computer security must be 
an integral part of the development process for any new system. 
Agencies now tend to develop a system and consider security issues only 
as an afterthought, if at all.
  Establish an ongoing, periodic reporting, testing and evaluation 
process to gauge the effectiveness of the policies and procedures. This 
would be accomplished through agency budgets, program performance and 
financial management.
  Require an independent, annual audit of all information security 
practices and programs within an agency. The audit would be conducted 
either by the agency's Inspector General, GAO or an independent 
external auditor. GAO has told us that an audit requirement is 
essential to monitoring agencies' management of information security 
and to ensure that these systems are kept current.
  Require that agencies report unauthorized intrusions into government 
systems. GSA currently has a program where agencies can report and seek 
help to respond to intrusions into their information systems and share 
information concerning common vulnerabilities and threats. Our bill 
would require agencies to use this reporting and monitoring system.
  Mr. President, the provisions of this bill would apply to all 
information, including classified and unclassified information 
maintained on civilian and national security systems. We are also 
considering whether the bill's provisions should apply to government 
owned, contractor operated facilities including laboratories engaged in 
national defense research. We look forward to discussions with the 
defense and intelligence communities on how best to address these 
issues.
  There are a number of areas we have not addressed, and I welcome 
comments on how best to handle these areas. For example:
  We need to ensure that computer security systems will not interfere 
with the ability of agencies to share data and communicate with each 
other and the rest of the world. The new era of ``e-business'' and ``e-
government'' holds untold opportunities for improving government 
efficiency, and that's something we want to encourage.
  The government needs to rapidly and safely increase the number of 
trained technical information security professionals. There are a range 
of approaches to addressing this need, including incentives to 
universities to train more people in this area; contracting out to the 
private sector; establishing a CyberCorps at universities based on the 
ROTC model; or establishing special career designations for personnel 
specializing in computer security.

[[Page 31104]]

  We should consider whether current technology will meet the 
government's computer security needs or whether we need to develop 
incentives for technology development. A Presidential advisory 
committee is developing recommendations based on a national laboratory 
model to conduct research and development of security technology with a 
possible secondary focus on testing.
  We are interested in exploring whether provisions in this bill 
addressing risk and technology standards, which are now voluntary, 
consensus-based standards, should be issued as minimum mandatory 
requirements for successive levels of risk.
  And we will also consider issues relating to budgetary needs, privacy 
requirements, performance measures and how best to coordinate 
information security and management within the federal government.
  Mr. President, I expect what we have proposed will generate a hearty 
debate. As I have said, I consider this bill a work in progress, so I 
look forward to hearing from a wide range of interested parties and to 
working with the Chairman to craft the best possible legislation to 
protect the integrity and the confidentiality of the government's vast 
storehouse of information.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1994. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
assistance to first-time homebuyers; to the Committee on Finance.


               the first time homebuyer affordability act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this week I laid out an agenda for 
restoring the federal role in expanding the nation's stock of 
affordable housing. Today, I am making a small downpayment on that 
promise with the First Time Homebuyer Affordability Act. This 
legislation, which I am introducing with Senator Bryan, will create new 
homeownership opportunities for many Americans by allowing them to 
borrow from their Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs), or their 
parents or grandparents IRAs, on a tax free basis for a downpayment on 
a first home. The legislation would also allow IRA funds to be used 
under an equity participation agreement. In both cases, the funds would 
have to be repaid to the IRA.
  We have all talked about the importance of homeownership. Indeed, 
homeownership makes a very significant contribution to solving many 
social problems we face in America. Children of homeowners are less 
likely to become involved in the criminal justice system; they are less 
likely to drop out of school, or have children out of wedlock. 
Homeowners vote more often and participate more in community 
organizations and activities.
  Yet, the single biggest barrier to homeownership is a downpayment. 
This legislation will help hundreds of thousands of homeowners surmount 
this barrier and realize the American dream.
  Mr. President, it is ironic that IRAs today can be invested in almost 
any asset, including real estate investment trusts, except one's own 
home. Yet, homeownership continues to be a winning investment, both for 
the family and the community.
  Under current law, individuals may borrow up to $10,000 from their 
401(k) retirement accounts to help buy a home without paying taxes. 
This legislation would put IRAs on the same footing as 401(k) plans 
while unlocking $2 trillion in IRA saving to help families become 
homeowners. It has a number of protections to ensure that the loan or 
investment will be repaid, with interest, or a taxes will be owed and a 
penalty assessed.
  This is good legislation, which has been endorsed by the Mortgage 
Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the 
National Association of Homebuilders. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator: We are writing to add our support for your 
     efforts to enhance homeownership opportunities through 
     expanded use for first time homebuyers of their Individual 
     Retirement Accounts (IRAs). We will work closely with you and 
     your colleagues to include this important provision in the 
     Senate Tax Bill.
       The United States has recently achieved a record 
     homeownership rate, rising home prices, combined with a 
     significant downpayment hurdle, continue to put homeownership 
     out of the reach of many families and individuals. Finding 
     ways to overcome the downpayment issue is critical to the 
     effort to make homeownership more affordable and obtainable 
     for these families and individuals. Your proposal provides 
     this bridge to enhance homeownership for millions of 
     Americans.
       Your plan would build upon the penalty waiver provisions 
     enacted in the 105th Congress to improve access to the $2 
     trillion held in IRAs for first time home purchase. Penalty 
     waiver provisions now permit people to withdraw up to $10,000 
     from an IRA account for the purchase of a first time home 
     without incurring a 10 percent premature withdrawal penalty.
       However, even with the penalty waiver, a prospective 
     homebuyer still owes federal and state taxes on the amount 
     withdrawn from the IRA. This reduces the amount available for 
     downpayment by thousands of dollars. The plan would eliminate 
     such tax consequences by allowing an individual to borrow up 
     to $10,000 from their IRA account or a parent's IRA account, 
     for a first time home purchase without a tax penalty. IRA 
     funds may also be used under an equity sharing arrangement.
       At present, holders of 401(k) retirement accounts may 
     borrow up to 50 percent of account assets, with a floor of 
     $10,000 and a ceiling of $50,000, for any personal use. 
     However, borrowing from an IRA account is prohibited, even 
     for a first time home purchase.
       We will work with you to move this key proposal forward to 
     enhance and expand homeownership for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
       Mortgage Bankers Association of America.
       National Association of Realtors.
       National Association of Home Builders.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1995. A bill to amend the National School Lunch Act to revise the 
eligibility of private organizations under the child and adult care 
food program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


   legislation to amend the national school lunch act to revise the 
  eligibility of private organizations under the child and adult care 
                              food program

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will correct an unintended obstacle in current law and expand the 
number of low-income children in child care centers that receive 
nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
  The current CACFP law provides for subsidies to proprietary child 
care centers for the nutritious meals they serve children, provided 
that at least 25% of the participants receive Title XX subsidies. This 
provision was included to encourage private child care providers to 
serve more low-income children, by providing funds to reimburse the 
costs of providing meals. When the law was enacted in 1981, it made 
sense to tie CACFP funds to Title XX, because Title XX was the primary 
source of Federal child care assistance at that time.
  As we all know, however, the Child Care & Development Block Grant has 
since become the States' primary funding source for child care 
assistance, while Title XX funds are being used primarily for other 
social service needs. This means that although many proprietary child 
care centers have enrollments with over 25% low-income children, those 
who no longer receive Title XX are no longer eligible for the CACFP 
meal subsidy.
  Thirty-eight States are currently using small amounts of their Title 
XX funds for child care subsidies so that at least some of the 
otherwise eligible children will receive meals in proprietary centers. 
In Wisconsin, for example, 65 proprietary centers are currently 
participating in the CACFP program, serving 3,294 children. However, if 
all eligible centers were able to participate, those numbers could 
increase to 149 proprietary centers serving 8,195 children, an increase 
of 4,901 children. A simple change in the law to reflect the current 
nature of Federal child care assistance could lead to Wisconsin 
receiving nearly $2,975,000 each year in Federal food subsidies for 
low-income children in child care.

[[Page 31105]]

  The bill I introduce today is simple. It would eliminate the outdated 
requirement that eligible children receive Title XX funds in order to 
trigger the CACFP meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary centers to 
participate in CACFP if at least 25% of the children they serve are 
eligible for a food nutrition subsidy. This change will ensure that 
proprietary centers will be able to continue to serve low-income 
children. It reduces pressure on proprietary centers to increase their 
rates for non-subsidized children to recover the costs of unreimbursed 
meals for subsidized children. It preserves the right of parents, 
including low-income parents, to choose the quality child care center 
that is most appropriate for their children. And most importantly, this 
change reinforces the original intent of the law: to ensure that 
eligible low-income children in proprietary child care centers have the 
benefit of a nutritious meal. I hope that all of my colleagues will 
join me in cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working 
for its swift passage when Congress reconvenes in January.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1997. A bill to simplify Federal oil and gas revenue 
distributions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


           mineral revenue payments clarification act of 1999

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing 
legislation which will end the practice of charging States for costs 
the Federal Government incurs in managing Federal mineral leases.
  The Mineral Revenue Payments Clarification Act of 1999 will eliminate 
net receipts sharing, allowing Federal agencies to more rationally and 
fairly apportion to States their share of Federal mineral revenues.
  Since enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act in 1920, Congress has 
determined that it was fair and appropriate to share with States a 
portion of the money received by the United States for Federal mineral 
leases located within the State. Under current law, for most mineral 
leases the State share is 50 percent, except for Alaska which receives 
90 percent.
  In 1993, a permanent provision was added to the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act that requires the Department of the Interior to 
deduct from a State's share 50 percent of the Federal Government's 
costs of administering Federal mineral leases within that State. This 
new requirement substantially lowers the amounts States receive, but 
was added without either explanation or justification as to why such a 
deduction is either fair or appropriate.
  Furthermore, the statutory procedures for figuring these deductions 
are cumbersome to the point of being unworkable. The Federal agencies 
charged with administering these requirements have found them 
difficult, and sometimes impossible, to implement in any consistent 
fashion.
  In November of 1997, the Inspector General of the Department of the 
Interior found that the Department had inaccurately calculated the 
costs involved in administering the Federal onshore mineral leasing 
program, resulting in substantial overcharges to States. This issue has 
yet to be fully resolved by the Department of the Interior.
  Needless to say, this complicated and unjustified provision has been 
controversial with the States and unpopular with the Federal agencies 
charged with administering it. It penalizes States while creating 
administrative nightmares for the Federal Government. It is time to do 
away with this unwieldy provision.
  Therefore, I am introducing The Mineral Revenue Payments 
Clarification Act of 1999, which will eliminate this provision and 
provide that States' shares of payments under Federal mineral leases 
will not be reduced by administrative or other costs incurred by the 
United States. I believe that this will return a system that is both 
fair, and capable of being administered in a reasonable 
fashion.

                          ____________________