[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3557-3566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, six thousand miles from where I am 
standing today, The Queen's Health System of Hawaii is providing health 
care services that benefit the residents of all the Hawaiian Islands. 
This year, approximately 18,000 inpatients and more than 200,000 
outpatients will seek health care from The Queen's Health Systems. The 
organization maintains an open emergency room; admits Medicare and 
Medicaid patients; operates a 536-bed accredited teaching hospital; 
operates Molokai General Hospital; operates clinics on various islands; 
provides home health care; supports nursing programs at Hawaiian 
colleges and universities; and promotes good health practices in many 
other ways.
  In 1885 Queen Emma Kaleleonalani, wife of King Kamehameha IV, 
bequeathed land which in large part composes the assets of The Queen 
Emma Foundation, a non-profit, tax-exempt, public charity. The 
Foundation s charitable purpose is to support and improve health care 
services in Hawaii by committing funds generated by Foundation-owned 
properties to The Queen's Medical Center, the Queen's Health Systems 
and other health care programs benefiting the community.
  Much of the land bequeathed by Queen Emma to the Foundation is 
encumbered by long-term, fixed rent commercial and industrial ground 
leases. As these leases expire, the land and improvements revert back 
to the Foundation. The existing, aged improvements thereon will need to 
be upgraded in order to enhance and continue the revenue-generating 
potential of the properties. However, the Foundation's available cash 
and cash flow are insufficient to implement these improvements which 
would result in increased financial support to The Queen's Medical 
Center, The Queen's Health Systems and other health care programs 
benefiting the community. If the Foundation borrows the funds, any 
income generated from those improvements would be subject to the debt-
financed property rules of the unrelated business income tax provisions 
of the Internal Revenue Code. Since the income would be taxed at the 
corporate rate, the amount ultimately available to The Queen's Health 
System would be greatly reduced.
  Consequently, the generosity and intent of Queen Emma more than 100 
years ago are being frustrated by federal tax provisions intended to 
prevent abuses. I am sure the Congress never intended the unfortunate 
consequences these provisions are having on what is virtually the sole 
source of private financial support for this sound and unique system of 
providing and delivering health care to the people of Hawaii.
  Current law already allows an exception from the debt-financing rules 
for certain real estate investments of pension trusts as well as an 
exception for educational institutions and their supporting 
organizations. The legislation I am introducing today grants similar

[[Page 3558]]

relief to institutions like The Queen Emma Foundation which provide and 
deliver health care to the people of our nation.
  I request unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 523

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITAL SUPPORT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS AS QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ACQUISITION 
                   INDEBTEDNESS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 514(c)(9) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at 
     the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:

       ``(iv) a qualified hospital support organization (as 
     defined in subparagraph (I)).''

       (b) Qualified Hospital Support Organizations.--Paragraph 
     (9) of section 514(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Qualified hospital support organizations.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (C)(iv), the term `qualified 
     hospital support organization' means, with respect to any 
     indebtedness, a support organization (as defined in section 
     509(a)(3)) which supports a hospital described in section 
     170(b)(1)(A)(iii) and with respect to which--

       ``(i) more than half of its assets (by value) at any time 
     since its organization--

       ``(I) were acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or 
     devise, and
       ``(II) consisted of real property,

       ``(ii) the fair market value of the organization's 
     unimproved real estate acquired, directly or indirectly, by 
     gift or devise, exceeded 10 percent of the fair market value 
     of all investment assets held by the organization immediately 
     prior to the time that the indebtedness was incurred, and
       ``(iii) no member of the organization's governing body was 
     a disqualified person (as defined in section 4946 but not 
     including any foundation manager) at any time during the 
     taxable year in which the indebtedness was incurred.

     In the case of any refinancing not in excess of the 
     indebtedness being refinanced, the determinations under 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be made by reference to the 
     earliest date indebtedness meeting the requirements of this 
     subparagraph (and involved in the chain of indebtedness being 
     refinanced) was incurred.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to indebtedness incurred on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 524. A bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to provide 
restitution to the people of Guam who suffered atrocities such as 
personal injury, forced labor, forced marches, internment, and death 
during the occupation of Guam in World War II, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      THE GUAM WAR RESTITUTION ACT

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, for nearly three years, the people of Guam 
endured war time atrocities and suffering. As part of Japan's assault 
against the Pacific, Guam was bombed and invaded by Japanese forces 
within three days of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, 
Guam was administered by the United States Navy under the authority of 
a Presidential Executive Order. It was also populated by then-American 
nationals. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign power 
invaded United States soil.
  In 1952, when the United States signed a peace treaty with Japan, 
formally ending World War II, it waived the rights of American 
nationals, including those of Guamanians, to present claims against 
Japan. As a result of this action, American nationals were forced to 
seek relief from the Congress of the United States.
  Today, I rise to introduce the Guam War Restitution Act, which would 
amend the Organic Act of Guam and provide restitution to those who 
suffered atrocities during the occupation of Guam in World War II. 
There are several key components to this measure.
  The Restitution Act would establish specific damage awards to those 
who are survivors of the war, and to the heirs of those who died during 
the war. The specific damage awards would be as follows: (1) $20,000 
for death; (2) $7,000 for personal injury; and (3) $5,000 for forced 
labor, forced march, or internment.
  The Restitution Act would also establish specific damage benefits to 
the heirs of those who survived the war and who made previous claims 
but have since died. The specific damage benefits would be as follows: 
(1) $7,000 for personal injury; and (2) $5,000 for forced labor, forced 
march, or internment. Payments for benefits may either be in the form 
of a scholarship, payment of medical expenses, or a grant for first-
time home ownership.
  This Act would also establish a Guam Trust Fund from which 
disbursements will be made. Any amount left in the fund would be used 
to establish the Guam World War II Loyalty Scholarships at the 
University of Guam.
  A nine member Guam Trust Fund Commission would be established to 
adjudicate and award all claims from the Trust Fund.
  The United States Congress previously recognized its moral obligation 
to the people of Guam and provided reparations relief by enacting the 
Guam Meritorious Claims Act on November 15, 1945 (Public Law 79-224). 
Unfortunately, the Claims Act was seriously flawed and did not 
adequately compensate Guam after World War II.
  The Claims Act primarily covered compensation for property damage and 
limited compensation for death or personal injury. Claims for forced 
labor, forced march, and internment were never compensated because the 
Claims Act excluded these from awardable injuries. The enactment of the 
Claims Act was intended ``to make Guam whole.'' The Claims Act, 
however, failed to specify postwar values as a basis for computing 
awards, and settled on prewar values, which did not reflect the true 
postwar replacement costs. Also, all property damage claims in excess 
of $5,000, as well as all death and injury claims, required 
Congressional review and approval. This action caused many eligible 
claimants to settle for less in order to receive timely compensation. 
The Claims Act also imposed a one-year time limit to file claims, which 
was insufficient as massive disruptions still existed following Guam's 
liberation. In addition, English was then a second language to a great 
many Guamanians. While a large number spoke English, few could read it. 
This is particularly important since the Land and War Claims Commission 
required written statements and often communicated with claimants in 
writing.
  The reparations program was also inadequate because it became 
secondary to overall reconstruction and the building of permanent 
military bases. In this regard, the Congress enacted the Guam Land 
Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (Public Laws 79-225 and 
79-583) as a means of rehabilitating Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act 
provided the means of exchanging excess federal land for resettlement 
purposes, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million to 
construct permanent facilities for the civic populace of the island for 
their economic rehabilitation.
  Approximately $8.1 million was paid to 4,356 recipients under the 
Guam Meritorious Claims Act. Of this amount, $4.3 million was paid to 
1,243 individuals for death, injury, and property damage in excess of 
$5,000, and $3.8 million to 3,113 recipients for property damage of 
less than $5,000.
  On June 3, 1947, former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes 
testified before the House Committee on Public Lands relative to the 
Organic Act, and strongly criticized the Department of the Navy for its 
``inefficient and even brutal handling of the rehabilitation and 
compensation and war damage tasks.'' Secretary Ickes termed the 
procedures as ``shameful results.''
  In addition, a committee known as the Hopkins Committee was 
established by former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in 1947 to 
assess the Navy's administration of Guam and American Samoa. An 
analysis of the Navy's administration of the reparation and 
rehabilitation programs was provided to Secretary Forrestal in a March 
25, 1947 letter from the Hopkins

[[Page 3559]]

Committee. The letter indicated that the Department's confusing policy 
decisions greatly contributed to the programs' deficiencies and called 
upon the Congress to pass legislation to correct its mistakes and 
provide reparations to the people of Guam.
  In 1948, the United States Congress enacted the War Claims Act of 
1948 (Public Law 80-896), which provided reparation relief to American 
prisoners of war, internees, religious organizations, and employees of 
defense contractors. The residents of Guam were deemed ineligible to 
receive reparations under this Act because they were American nationals 
and not American citizens. In 1950, the United States Congress enacted 
the Guam Organic Act (81-630), granting Guamanians American citizenship 
and a measure of self-government.
  The Congress, in 1962, amended the War Claims Act to provide benefits 
to claimants who were nationals at the time of the war and later became 
citizens. Again, the residents of Guam were specifically excluded. The 
Congress believed that the residents of Guam were provided for under 
the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. At that time, there was no one to 
defend Guam, as they had no representation in Congress. The Congress 
also enacted the Micronesian Claims Act for the Trust Territory of the 
Pacific Islands, but again excluded Guam in the settlement.
  In 1988, the now inactive Guam War Reparations Commission documented 
3,365 unresolved claims. There are potentially 5,000 additional 
unresolved claims. In 1946, the United States provided more than $390 
million in reparations to the Philippines, and more than $10 million to 
the Micronesian Islands in 1971 for atrocities inflicted by Japan.
  In addition, the United States provided more than $2 billion in 
postwar aid to Japan from 1946 to 1951. Further, the United States 
government liquidated more than $84 million in Japanese assets in the 
United States during the war for the specific purpose of compensating 
claims of its citizens and nationals. The United States did not invoke 
its authority to seize more assets from Japan under Article 14 of the 
Treaty of Peace, as other Allied Powers had done. The United States, 
however, did close the door on the claims of the people of Guam.
  A companion measure to my bill, H.R. 755, was introduced in the House 
of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood. The issue of 
reparations for Guam is not a new one for the people of Guam and for 
the United States Congress. It has been consistently raised by the 
Guamanian government through local enactments of legislative bills and 
resolutions, and discussed with Congressional leaders over the years.
  The Guam War Restitution Act cannot fully compensate or erase the 
atrocities inflicted upon Guam and its people during the occupation by 
the Japanese military. However, passage of this Act would recognize our 
government's moral obligation to Guam, and bring justice to the people 
of Guam for the atrocities and suffering they endured during World War 
II. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 524

       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 ``Guam War Restitution Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ORGANIC ACT OF GUAM TO PROVIDE 
                   RESTITUTION.

       The Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 35. RECOGNITION OF DEMONSTRATED LOYALTY OF GUAM TO 
                   UNITED STATES, AND SUFFERING AND DEPRIVATION 
                   ARISING THEREFROM, DURING WORLD WAR II.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Award.--The term `award' means the amount of 
     compensation payable under subsection (d)(2).
       ``(2) Benefit.--The term `benefit' means the amount of 
     compensation payable under subsection (d)(3).
       ``(3) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the Guam 
     Trust Fund Commission established by subsection (f).
       ``(4) Compensable injury.--The term `compensable injury' 
     means one of the following three categories of injury 
     incurred during and as a result of World War II:
       ``(A) Death.
       ``(B) Personal injury (as defined by the Commission).
       ``(C) Forced labor, forced march, or internment.
       ``(5) Guamanian.--The term `Guamanian' means any person 
     who--
       ``(A) resided in the territory of Guam during any portion 
     of the period beginning on December 8, 1941, and ending on 
     August 10, 1944, and
       ``(B) was a United States citizen or national during such 
     portion.
       ``(6) Proof.--The term `proof' relative to compensable 
     injury means any one of the following, if determined by the 
     Commission to be valid:
       ``(A) An affidavit by a witness to such compensable injury;
       ``(B) A statement, attesting to compensable injury, which 
     is--
       ``(i) offered as oral history collected for academic, 
     historic preservation, or journalistic purposes;
       ``(ii) made before a committee of the Guam legislature;
       ``(iii) made in support of a claim filed with the Guam War 
     Reparations Commission;
       ``(iv) filed with a private Guam war claims advocate; or
       ``(v) made in a claim pursuant to the first section of the 
     Act of November 15, 1945 (Chapter 483; 59 Stat. 582).
       ``(7) Trust fund.--The term `Trust Fund' means the Guam 
     Trust Fund established by subsection (e).
       ``(b) Requirements for Claims and General Duties of 
     Commission--
       ``(1) Required information for claims.--Each claim for an 
     award or benefit under this section shall be made under oath 
     and shall include--
       ``(A) the name and age of the claimant;
       ``(B) the village in which the individual who suffered the 
     compensable injury which is the basis for the claim resided 
     at the time the compensable injury occurred;
       ``(C) the approximate date or dates on which the 
     compensable injury occurred;
       ``(D) a brief description of the compensable injury which 
     is the basis for the claim;
       ``(E) the circumstances leading up to the compensable 
     injury; and
       ``(F) in the case of a claim for a benefit, proof of the 
     relationship of the claimant to the relevant decedent.
       ``(2) General duties of the commission to process claims.--
     With respect to each claim filed under this section, the 
     Commission shall determine whether the claimant is eligible 
     for an award or benefit under this section and, if so, shall 
     certify the claim for payment in accordance with subsection 
     (d).
       ``(3) Time limitation.--With respect to each claim 
     submitted under this section, the Commission shall act 
     expeditiously, but in no event later than 1 year after the 
     receipt of the claim by the Commission, to fulfill the 
     requirements of paragraph (2) regarding the claim.
       ``(4) Direct receipt of proof from public claims files 
     permitted.--The Commission may receive proof of a compensable 
     injury directly from the Governor of Guam, or the Federal 
     custodian of an original claim filed with respect to the 
     injury pursuant to the first section of the Act of November 
     15, 1945 (Chapter 483; 59 Stat. 582), if such proof is 
     contained in the respective public records of the Governor or 
     the custodian.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Eligibility for awards.--A claimant shall be eligible 
     for an award under this section if the claimant meets each of 
     the following criteria:
       ``(A) The claimant is--
       ``(i) a living Guamanian who personally received the 
     compensable injury that is the basis for the claim, or
       ``(ii) the heir or next of kin of a decedent Guamanian, in 
     the case of a claim with respect to which the compensable 
     injury is death.
       ``(B) The claimant meets the requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Eligibility for benefits.--A claimant shall be 
     eligible for a benefit under this section if the claimant 
     meets each of the following criteria:
       ``(A) The claimant is the heir or next of kin of a decedent 
     Guamanian who personally received the compensable injury that 
     is the basis for the claim, and the claim is made with 
     respect to a compensable injury other than death.
       ``(B) The claimant meets the requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(3) General requirements for eligibility.--A claimant 
     meets the requirements of this paragraph if the claimant 
     meets each of the following criteria:
       ``(A) The claimant files a claim with the Commission 
     regarding a compensable injury and containing all of the 
     information required by subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) The claimant furnishes proof of the compensable 
     injury.
       ``(C) By such procedures as the Commission may prescribe, 
     the claimant files a claim under this section not later than 
     1 year after

[[Page 3560]]

     the date of the appointment of the ninth member of the 
     Commission.
       ``(4) Limitation on eligibility for awards and benefits--
       ``(A) Awards.--
       ``(i) No claimant may receive more than 1 award under this 
     section and not more than 1 award may be paid under this 
     section with respect to each decedent described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii).
       ``(ii) Each award shall consist of only 1 of the amounts 
     referred to in subsection (d)(2).
       ``(B) Benefits.--
       ``(i) Not more than 1 benefit may be paid under this Act 
     with respect to each decedent described in paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(ii) Each benefit shall consist of only 1 of the amounts 
     referred to in subsection (d)(3).
       ``(d) Payments.--
       ``(1) Certification.--The Commission shall certify for 
     payment all awards and benefits that the Commission 
     determines are payable under this section.
       ``(2) Awards.--The Commission shall pay from the Trust Fund 
     1 of the following amounts as an award for each claim with 
     respect to which a claimant is determined to be eligible 
     under subsection (c)(1):
       ``(A) $20,000 if the claim is based on death.
       ``(B) $7,000 if the claim is based on personal injury.
       ``(C) $5,000 if the claim is based on forced labor, forced 
     march, or internment and is not based on personal injury.
       ``(3) Benefits.--The Commission shall pay from the Trust 
     Fund 1 of the following amounts as a benefit with respect to 
     each claim for which a claimant is determined eligible under 
     subsection (c)(2):
       ``(A) $7,000 if the claim is based on personal injury.
       ``(B) $5,000 if the claim is based on forced labor, forced 
     march, or internment and is not based on personal injury.
       ``(4) Reduction of amount to coordinate with previous 
     claims.--The amount required to be paid under paragraph (2) 
     or (3) for a claim with respect to any Guamanian shall be 
     reduced by any amount paid under the first section of the Act 
     of November 15, 1945 (Chapter 483; 59 Stat. 582) with respect 
     to such Guamanian.
       ``(5) Form of payment.--
       ``(A) Awards.--In the case of a claim for an award, payment 
     under this subsection shall be made in cash to the claimant, 
     except as provided in paragraph (6).
       ``(B) Benefits.--In the case of a claim for a benefit--
       ``(i) In general.--Payment under this subsection shall 
     consist of--

       ``(I) provision of a scholarship;
       ``(II) payment of medical expenses; or
       ``(III) a grant for first-time home ownership.

       ``(ii) Method of payment.--Payment of cash under this 
     subsection may not be made directly to a claimant, but may be 
     made to a service provider, seller of goods or services, or 
     other person in order to provide to a claimant (or other 
     person, as provided in paragraph (6)) a benefit referred to 
     in subparagraph (B).
       ``(C) Development of procedures.--The Commission shall 
     develop and implement procedures to carry out this paragraph.
       ``(6) Payments on claims with respect to same decedent.--
       ``(A) Awards.--In the case of a claim based on the 
     compensable injury of death, payment of an award under this 
     section shall be divided, as provided in the probate laws of 
     Guam, among the heirs or next of kin of the decedent who file 
     claims for such division by such procedures as the Commission 
     may prescribe.
       ``(B) Individuals proving consanguinity with claimants for 
     benefits.--Each individual who proves consanguinity with a 
     claimant who has met each of the criteria specified in 
     subsection (c)(2) shall be entitled to receive an equal share 
     of the benefit accruing under this section with respect to 
     the claim of such claimant if the individual files a claim 
     with the Commission by such procedures as the Commission may 
     prescribe.
       ``(7) Order of payments.--The Commission shall endeavor to 
     make payments under this section with respect to awards 
     before making such payments with respect to benefits and, 
     when making payments with respect to awards or benefits, 
     respectively, to make payments to eligible individuals in the 
     order of date of birth (the oldest individual on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, or if applicable, the survivors of 
     that individual, receiving payment first) until all eligible 
     individuals have received payment in full.
       ``(8) Refusal to accept payment.--If a claimant refuses to 
     accept a payment made or offered under paragraph (2) or (3) 
     with respect to a claim filed under this section--
       ``(A) the amount of the refused payment, if withdrawn from 
     the Trust Fund for purposes of making the payment, shall be 
     returned to the Trust Fund; and
       ``(B) no payment may be made under this section to such 
     claimant at any future date with respect to the claim.
       ``(9) Clarification of treatment of payments under other 
     laws.--Awards paid to eligible claimants--
       ``(A) shall be treated for purposes of the internal revenue 
     laws of the United States as damages received on account of 
     personal injuries or sickness; and
       ``(B) shall not be included as income or resources for 
     purposes of determining eligibility to receive benefits 
     described in section 3803(c)(2)(C) of title 31, United States 
     Code, or the amount of such benefits.
       ``(e) Guam Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States the Guam Trust Fund, which shall be 
     administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(2) Investments.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be 
     invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       ``(3) Uses.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be available 
     only for disbursement by the Commission in accordance with 
     subsection (f).
       ``(4) Disposition of funds upon termination.--If all of the 
     amounts in the Trust Fund have not been obligated or expended 
     by the date of the termination of the Commission, investments 
     of amounts in the Trust Fund shall be liquidated, the 
     receipts of such liquidation shall be deposited in the Trust 
     Fund, and any unobligated funds remaining in the Trust Fund 
     shall be given to the University of Guam, with the conditions 
     that--
       ``(A) the funds are invested as described in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) the funds are used for scholarships to be known as 
     Guam World War II Loyalty Scholarships, for claimants 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) or in 
     subsection (d)(6), or for such scholarships for the 
     descendants of such claimants; and
       ``(C) as the University determines appropriate, the 
     University shall endeavor to award the scholarships referred 
     to in subparagraph (B) in a manner that permits the award of 
     the largest possible number of scholarships over the longest 
     possible period of time.
       ``(f) Guam Trust Fund Commission.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Guam Trust 
     Fund Commission, which shall be responsible for making 
     disbursements from the Guam Trust Fund in the manner provided 
     in this section.
       ``(2) Use of guam trust fund.--The Commission may make 
     disbursements from the Guam Trust Fund only for the following 
     uses:
       ``(A) To make payments, under subsection (d), of awards and 
     benefits.
       ``(B) To sponsor research and public educational activities 
     so that the events surrounding the wartime experiences and 
     losses of the Guamanian people will be remembered, and so 
     that the causes and circumstances of this event and similar 
     events may be illuminated and understood.
       ``(C) To pay reasonable administrative expenses of the 
     Commission, including expenses incurred under paragraphs 
     (3)(C), (4), and (5).
       ``(3) Membership.--
       ``(A) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 9 members who are not officers or employees of 
     the United States Government and who are appointed by the 
     President from recommendations made by the Governor of Guam.
       ``(B) Terms.--
       ``(i) Initial members of the Commission shall be appointed 
     for initial terms of 3 years, and subsequent terms shall be 
     of a length determined pursuant to subparagraph (F).
       ``(ii) Any member of the Commission who is appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term 
     for which such member's predecessor was appointed shall be 
     appointed only for the remainder of such term.
       ``(C) Prohibition of compensation other than expenses.--
     Members of the Commission shall serve without pay as such, 
     except that members of the Commission shall be entitled to 
     reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred by them in carrying out the functions of 
     the Commission in the same manner that persons employed 
     intermittently in the United States Government are allowed 
     expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(D) Quorum.--5 members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       ``(E) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be elected by the members of the Commission.
       ``(F) Subsequent appointments.--
       ``(i) Upon the expiration of the term of each member of the 
     Commission, the President shall reappoint the member (or 
     appoint another individual to replace the member) if the 
     President determines, after consideration of the reports 
     submitted to the President by the Commission under this 
     section, that there are sufficient funds in the Trust Fund 
     for the present and future administrative costs of the 
     Commission and for the payment of further awards and benefits 
     for which claims have been or may be filed under this title.
       ``(ii) Members appointed under clause (i) shall be 
     appointed for a term of a length that the President 
     determines to be appropriate, but the length of such term 
     shall not exceed 3 years.
       ``(4) Staff and services.--
       ``(A) Director.--The Commission shall have a Director who 
     shall be appointed by the Commission.

[[Page 3561]]

       ``(B) Additional staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix 
     the pay of such additional staff as it may require.
       ``(C) Inapplicability of certain provisions of title 5, 
     united states code.--The Director and the additional staff of 
     the Commission may be appointed without regard to section 
     5311 of title 5, United States Code, and without regard to 
     the provisions of such title governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and may be paid without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     such title, relating to classification and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the compensation of any employee of 
     the Commission may not exceed a rate equivalent to the 
     minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332(a) of such title.
       ``(D) Administrative support services.--The Administrator 
     of General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       ``(5) Gifts and donations.--The Commission may accept, use, 
     and dispose of gifts or donations of funds, services, or 
     property for uses referred to in paragraph (2). The 
     Commission may deposit such gifts or donations, or the 
     proceeds from such gifts or donations, into the Trust Fund.
       ``(6) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     earlier of--
       ``(A) the expiration of the 6-year period beginning on the 
     date of the appointment of the first member of the 
     Commission; or
       ``(B) the date on which the Commission submits to the 
     Congress a certification that all claims certified for 
     payment under this section are paid in full and no further 
     claims are expected to be so certified.
       ``(g) Notice.--Not later than 90 days after the appointment 
     of the ninth member of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     give public notice in the territory of Guam and such other 
     places as the Commission deems appropriate of the time 
     limitation within which claims may be filed under this 
     section. The Commission shall ensure that the provisions of 
     this section are widely published in the territory of Guam 
     and such other places as the Commission deems appropriate, 
     and the Commission shall make every effort both to advise 
     promptly all individuals who may be entitled to file claims 
     under the provisions of this title and to assist such 
     individuals in the preparation and filing of their claims.
       ``(h) Reports.--
       ``(1) Compensation and claims.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the formation of the Commission, and each year 
     thereafter for which the Commission is in existence, the 
     Commission shall submit to the Congress, the President, and 
     the Governor of Guam a report containing a determination of 
     the specific amount of compensation necessary to fully carry 
     out this section, the expected amount of receipts to the 
     Trust Fund, and all payments made by the Commission under 
     this section. The report shall also include, with respect to 
     the year which the report concerns--
       ``(A) a list of all claims, categorized by compensable 
     injury, which were determined to be eligible for an award or 
     benefit under this section, and a list of all claims, 
     categorized by compensable injury, which were certified for 
     payment under this section; and
       ``(B) a list of all claims, categorized by compensable 
     injury, which were determined not to be eligible for an award 
     or benefit under this section, and a brief explanation of the 
     reason therefor.
       ``(2) Annual operations and status of trust fund.--
     Beginning with the first full fiscal year ending after 
     submission of the first report required by paragraph (1), and 
     annually thereafter with respect to each fiscal year in which 
     the Commission is in existence, the Commission shall submit a 
     report to Congress, the President, and the Governor of Guam 
     concerning the operations of the Commission under this 
     section and the status of the Trust Fund. Each such report 
     shall be submitted not later than January 15th of the first 
     calendar year beginning after the end of the fiscal year 
     which the report concerns.
       ``(3) Final award report.--After all awards have been paid 
     to eligible claimants, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the Congress, the President, and the Governor of Guam 
     certifying--
       ``(A) the total amount of compensation paid as awards under 
     this section, broken down by category of compensable injury; 
     and
       ``(B) the status of the Trust Fund and the amount of any 
     existing balance thereof.
       ``(4) Final benefits report.--After all benefits have been 
     paid to eligible claimants, the Commission shall submit a 
     report to the Congress, the President, and the Governor of 
     Guam certifying--
       ``(A) the total amount of compensation paid as benefits 
     under this section, broken down by category of compensable 
     injury; and
       ``(B) the final status of the Trust Fund and the amount of 
     any existing balance thereof.
       ``(i) Limitation of Agent and Attorney Fees.--It shall be 
     unlawful for an amount exceeding 5 percent of any payment 
     required by this section with respect to an award or benefit 
     to be paid to or received by any agent or attorney for any 
     service rendered in connection with the payment. Any person 
     who violates this section shall be fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
     or both.
       ``(j) Disclaimer.--No provision of this section shall 
     constitute an obligation for the United States to pay any 
     claim arising out of war. The compensation provided in this 
     section is ex gratia in nature and intended solely as a means 
     of recognizing the demonstrated loyalty of the people of Guam 
     to the United States, and the suffering and deprivation 
     arising therefrom, during World War II.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, from sums appropriated to the 
     Department of the Interior, such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this section, including the administrative 
     responsibilities of the Commission for the 36-month period 
     beginning on the date of the appointment of the ninth member 
     of the Commission. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this 
     section are authorized to remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3. RECOMMENDATION OF FUNDING MEASURES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the submission of 
     the first report submitted under section 35(h)(1) of the 
     Organic Act of Guam (as added by section 2 of this Act), the 
     President shall submit to the Congress a list of recommended 
     spending cuts or other measures which, if implemented, would 
     generate sufficient savings or income, during the first 5 
     fiscal years beginning after the date of the submission of 
     such list, to provide the amount of compensation necessary to 
     fully carry out this section (as determined in such first 
     report).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 525. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign 
the $1 bill so as to incorporate the preamble to the Constitution of 
the United States, the Bill of Rights, and a list of the Articles of 
the Constitution on the reverse side of such currency; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                        LIBERTY DOLLAR BILL ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Liberty 
Dollar Bill Act.
  Last year, students at Liberty Middle School in Ashland, Virginia 
came up with an idea. The measure I introduce today simply implements 
their vision. This bill directs the Treasury to place the actual 
language from the Constitution on the back of the one dollar bill.
  Our founding fathers met in 1787, to write what would become the 
model for all modern democracies--the Constitution. Washington, 
Madison, Franklin, Hamilton and many other great Americans met for four 
months that year to ignite history's greatest light of government.
  They argued, fought, and compromised to create a lasting democracy, 
built on a philosophy found in the preamble of the constitution. And 
they protected this philosophy and these ideals by creating three 
branches of government and divisions of power between the federal and 
state governments found in the articles and the amendments of the 
Constitution.
  Although our currency celebrates the men who first drafted the 
Constitution, it doesn't celebrate their most nobel achievement. 
Shouldn't this greatest of American achievements be in the hands of all 
Americans?
  All presidents, likewise all public officers, swear to ``preserve, 
protect and defend'' the Constitution. No country can survive if it 
loses its philosophical moorings. The freedoms and liberties we enjoy 
give substance, value and meaning to the laws by which we live. Our 
Nation's philosophy can be taken for granted in the daily business of 
lawmaking. Yet we can hear in John F. Kennedy's inaugural address that 
we do not defend America's laws, we defend its philosophy--a philosophy 
embodied in the Constitution.
  Seventy-five percent of Americans say that ``The Constitution is 
important to them, makes them proud, and is relevant to their lives.''
  So important is this document that we built the Archives in 
Washington to house and safeguard it. Hundreds of thousands go there 
each year to see it. However, ninety-four percent of Americans don't 
know all of the rights and freedoms found in the First Amendment. 
Sixty-two percent of Americans can't name our three branches of 
government.
  Six hundred thousand legal immigrants come to America each year. 
Often their first sight of America is the

[[Page 3562]]

Statue of Liberty, holding high her torch, symbolizing our light and 
our freedom. Many of these immigrants become American citizens by the 
naturalization process and learn more about the Constitution than many 
natural born citizens.
  If America's most patriotic symbol--the Constitution--were on the 
back of the one dollar bill, wouldn't we all know more about our 
Government? The Constitution should be in the hands of every American.
  Our Constitution is a beacon of light for the world. People 
everywhere should be able to hold up our one dollar bill as a symbol of 
the freedom of modern democracy.
  I am proud to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, 
Chairman Tom Bliley,  and reintroduce the companion legislation in the 
Senate. The Liberty Dollar Bill Act directs the Secretary of the 
Treasury to incorporate the preamble to the Constitution of the United 
States, the Bill of Rights, and a list of the Articles of the 
Constitution on the reverse side of the one dollar bill.
  Mr. President, I agree with the students of Liberty Middle School. 
The Constitution belongs to the people. It should be in their hands.
  I want to commend the students of Liberty Middle School and their 
teacher, Mr. Randy Wright for their contribution to our Nation. I hope 
all my colleagues in the Senate will see the wisdom of these students 
and join me as a cosponsor of this legislation. Let the Nation hear 
that the younger generation can provide ideas that become the laws of 
our land.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 526. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance public-private 
partnership activities relating to school facilities in public 
elementary and secondary schools, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


             the public school construction partnership act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Grassley, 
Kerrey, DeWine, Torricelli, and Hutchison to introduce the Public 
School Construction Partnership Act. As teachers, students, parents, 
and school administrators know, the United States faces a school 
infrastructure crisis. Many of our schools are more than 50 years old 
and crumbling, and the General Accounting Office estimates that it will 
cost about $112 billion to bring them into good repair. Moreover, this 
estimate does not take into account the need for new construction. The 
U.S. Department of Education projects that some 1.9 million more 
students will be entering schools in the next 10 years. At current 
prices, it will cost about $73 billion to build the new schools needed 
to educate this growing student population. Mr. President, I might add 
that my own State is gaining 60,000 new students each year. By the end 
of the decade, Florida's student enrollment will have increased 25 
percent more than the population as a whole.
  Education is rightfully a state and local matter, but the federal 
government can play a helpful, non-intrusive role in assisting 
communities overwhelmed by explosive increases in student enrollment. 
We at the federal level should help empower local school districts to 
find innovative, cost effective ways to finance new schools and repair 
aging ones.
  The bill I am introducing today with Senator Grassley provides new 
flexibility to state and local efforts to finance new schools and 
repair older ones. I believe that we should be providing a ``cafeteria 
plan'' of options to choose from in order to enable local and state 
governments to have a variety of financing tools available to them. An 
innovative means of financing the building or renovation of a school in 
an urban area like Miami won't necessarily be the best option for a 
rural town in Iowa. Therefore, our legislation provides four different 
alternatives to ease the burden of financing public school 
construction.
  One alternative is to add educational facilities to the list of 12 
types of facilities that can use private activity bonds. As you can 
see, these bonds are used to finance a wide range of public projects: 
from airports and mass commuting facilities, to qualified residential 
rental projects and environmental enhancements of hydroelectric 
generating facilities.
  The importance of adding public educational facilities to this list 
is that these bonds would be tax exempt. And I emphasize the word 
public because private non-profit elementary and secondary schools 
already have the ability to issue tax-exempt facility bonds. Public 
schools should have the same tax treatment. Our legislation gives 
public schools parity with private schools.
  The public/private partnership in school construction through the use 
of private activity bonds is already being used in the Canadian 
Province of Nova Scotia. Here is how it works: a private corporation 
builds the school and leases it to the school district at a reduced 
rate. The private entity supplements the cost of the building by 
leasing it for other uses during non-school hours.
  This approach has been a success. According to a study by Ron Utt at 
the Heritage Foundation, 41 new schools have either been completed or 
approved for construction under the Public/Private Partnership Program. 
In the next three years, Nova Scotia expects to replace 10 percent of 
its schools through such partnerships.
  I am optimistic that enabling communities in the United States to 
have the same opportunity will foster the same results.
  Another portion of this legislation would help relieve some of the 
burdens on small and rural school districts.
  Current law relieves small issuers of tax-exempt bonds for qualified 
school construction from onerous federal arbitrage regulations, but 
more relief is needed. The calculations required to determine the 
amount of arbitrage rebate are extremely complex and often require that 
a local government hire an outside consultant. Despite the trouble and 
expense of compliance, rebate amounts are usually quite small. Local 
governments sometimes spend much more to comply with the rebate rules 
than the amount actually rebated to the Treasury.
  This legislation would permit school districts to keep funds earned 
on bond proceeds instead of reimbursing the Treasury Department if the 
bonds offered by the district totalled less than $15 million that year, 
or if the bonds are spent within four years.
  Our legislation would also increase the amount of bonds banks can 
hold and still receive tax exempt status. Currently, banks may deduct 
their interest expense for loans if the bonds are less than $10 million 
in a one year period. We would increase that limit to $25 million, 
allowing school bonds to be bought directly by the banks without having 
to undertake the complexities of accessing the public capital markets.
  Changing these current tax laws would help local school districts 
throughout the United States. Our legislation would foster even more 
innovative approaches to finance the building and refurbishment of our 
public schools. Such public-private partnerships would speed 
construction of new schools and reduce costs to communities.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am joining my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing the School Construction 
Financing Improvement Act of 1999.
  The single most important source of funding for investment in public 
school construction and rehabilitation is the tax-exempt bond market. 
Tax-exempt bonds finance approximately 90 percent of the nation's 
investment in public schools. In my home state of Iowa over $625 
million in tax-exempt bonds were issued to school districts in 1998 
alone.
  There is a well-recongized need throughout the country for billions 
of additional new dollars in school construction and rehabilitation. A 
report from the General Accounting Office says urban schools alone need 
$112 billion in repairs over three years to bring

[[Page 3563]]

their buildings back into working order. That same study says about 14 
million children attend U.S. schools in need of extensive repairs, and 
about 7 million attend schools with life threatening safety code 
violations.
  American schoolchildren attending schools with leaky roofs, 
inadequate bathrooms, poor air quality, and unreliable fire protection 
equipment is an unacceptable state of affairs. We need to step up to 
the plate and address this issue, not only promptly, but also properly. 
The administration's proposed use of tax credit bonds is inherently 
unworkable and inefficient. The school districts in states all across 
this land need greater flexibility not more federal regulations and 
controls.
  Tax-exempt bonds have proven to be an effective financial instrument 
to fund school rehabilitation and construction. Therefore, it is 
appropriate and necessary to examine tax code limitations on the use of 
tax-exempt bonds for schools and to consider ways to amend the code to 
give school districts even greater access to the capital they earnestly 
need and deserve. Let's expand on something that works.
  The administration has proposed policy initiatives to enhance and 
expand the use of tax credit bonds called ``Qualified Zone Academy 
Bonds'' or QZABs. However the QZAB program has proven incapable of 
attracting investors due to inherent flaws in tax credit bonds that 
make them extremely illiquid and unpredictable investments, and 
specific limitations on the use of these bonds imposed by the federal 
government on the states. These significant and crippling limitations 
include the exclusion of individual investors from purchasing QZABs, 
the requirement that school districts secure hard to come by ``private 
business contributions'', and prohibitions on the use of QZABs to fund 
new school construction projects.
  Experience and study has shown that tax exempt bonds are a more 
workable, more efficient, and more popular alternative to QZABs. This 
bill reflects my belief that the wisest course to achieving the goal of 
providing schools with necessary capital to build and rehabilitate our 
nation's schools is to continue refining tax code limitations on the 
use of tax-exempt bonds.
  The legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today is 
designed to narrowly target the use of tax-exempt bonds to school 
construction alone and do not change any tax code provisions designed 
to prevent abuse of bond issuance authority.
  The first provision would allow school districts to make use of 
public-private partnerships in issuing tax-exempt bonds for public 
school construction or rehabilitation. The bonds would be exempt from 
the annual state volume caps. This will allow schools to leverage 
private investment in school facilities and would encourage school 
districts to partner with private investors in new and creative ways.
  The second provision addresses the current two year construction 
spend-down exemption in arbitrage rebate regulations. This policy 
allows the exemption of bonds from arbitrage rebate if the issuer 
spends virtually all its bond proceeds within two years of the time 
these bonds for construction projects are issued. We recommend an 
extension of this exemption from two years to four years for school 
bonds. Often the two year limit is insufficient to cover major 
construction projects, especially when multiple projects are funded 
from a single bond issue. The extension of time limit on the exemption 
provision will also improve the flexibility of school districts that 
use bonds and relieve the school bond issuer from superfluous and 
burdensome tax compliance costs.
  The second provision would also raise from $10 million to $15 million 
the volume of school construction bonds a small school district could 
issue each year and still qualify for the small-issuer arbitrage rebate 
exemption. This provision expands the benefits of the small-issuer 
rebate exemption to a much broader universe of small school bond 
issuers.
  The third provision of the bill would permit banks to invest in 
certain qualified tax-exempt school construction bonds without penalty. 
Before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that imposed a tax penalty on banks 
that earn tax-exempt interest, commercial banks were one of the most 
active groups of investors in the municipal bond market. This provision 
would directly reduce the cost of borrowing for new school construction 
and would result in more investment in public schools.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Graham and myself in trying to 
help schools receive the crucial funds necessary to build and repair 
America's schools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 527. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to suspend temporarily the duty with respect to the personal 
effects of participants in certain athletic events; to the Committee on 
Finance.


treatment of personal effects of participants in certain world athletic 
                                 events

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing today an amendment to 
subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States. My amendment would allow athletes participating in world 
events, such as the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympic Games, to bring into 
the United States, duty free, such personal effects as equipment 
expressly used in the sporting events, and then re-exported with 
departing athletes at the termination of the events.
  This bill is needed to relieve both Customs officials and event 
participants of immense amounts of documentation required in the past 
for such exceptions to Customs laws and practices. However, this 
amendment does not exempt such items from inspection by Customs 
officials, inspections which can be made entirely on their discretion, 
nor does it allow the entry of items barred under current law. This 
same bill, which I introduced in the prior, 105th Congress was 
favorably reported out by both the House Ways and Means Committee and 
the Senate Finance Committee, and incorporated in the Omnibus Trade 
Bill which failed passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 528. A bill to provide for a private right of action in the case 
of injury from the importation of certain dumped and subsidized 
merchandise; to the Committee on Finance.


                 unfair foreign competition act of 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose 
of introducing the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 1999. This 
legislation is in response to a crisis facing the steel industry in the 
United States as a result of subsidized and dumped goods coming into 
the United States from a variety of countries--from Russia, from 
Brazil, from Japan, from Indonesia--where steel is being sold in the 
United States at far under cost of production and far under the price 
steel is being sold for in those countries.
  We know the financial problems which are present now in Russia where 
they are very anxious to have dollars and are selling steel in America 
for anything, virtually, that they can get for it. A similar problem 
has arisen with respect to other countries.
  The steel industry has modernized, spending some $50 billion, and 
simply cannot compete with this kind of subsidy on dumped goods. 
Thousands of steelworkers are losing their jobs. A few years back there 
were 500,000 steelworkers in the United States; now that number is down 
to about 160,000, and more are going daily and weekly as a result of 
this dumped steel coming into the United States.
  The existing laws are totally insufficient. When the administrative 
procedures are taken under existing law, it takes months. For example, 
complaints filed in September of 1998 will not be heard, adjudicated, 
decided, until May. Then there will be some retroactive duty 
imposition. Meanwhile, thousands of steelworkers will be losing their 
jobs. The steel industry will be suffering tremendous losses from which 
it cannot recover.
  Beyond the issue of the industry itself and the workers, we have the 
paramount issue on national defense, the industrial base for the United 
States.

[[Page 3564]]

  My legislation would provide a private right of action so that 
injured parties could go into a Federal court, into a court of equity, 
and get immediate relief. This legislation is similar to legislation 
which I have introduced as far back as 1982 where I sought injunctive 
relief. It now appears that injunctive relief is not consistent with 
GATT, although GATT international trade laws are consistent with U.S. 
trade laws which prohibit subsidized or dumped goods from coming into 
the United States.
  The remedy which is provided in this bill would be that tariffs would 
be imposed at the direction of the Federal court as the form of 
equitable relief, and these tariffs would then be paid over to the 
damaged parties--to the steelworkers who had sustained damages as a 
result of losing their jobs and to the steel companies which had 
sustained damages from loss of sales as a result of this illegal steel 
coming into the United States which is dumped or subsidized.
  There have been rallies held across the United States and on the west 
end of the Capitol not too long ago. The Senate Steel Caucus, which I 
have the privilege to chair, has had a series of hearings, including 
one in Pittsburgh on February 18.
  There are a variety of legislative proposals now pending before the 
Congress: Tariffs, changing the U.S. law to conform to international 
laws to make it easier to get relief under 201 and 301. But there is 
nothing on the books which would be as effective as the kind of 
equitable relief which would be provided by this private right of 
action. There is litigation pending now in the Federal court in Ohio 
brought by Wheeling-Pittsburgh where, after I conferred with the 
officials of that company, they brought an equity action in the State 
courts seeking equitable relief, and it has since been transferred to 
the Federal courts. I believe that cause of action, that claim for 
relief in the Federal court, is well founded.
  This legislation would remove any doubt that the injured parties--the 
workers, the companies, injured parties--would have a right to go into 
Federal court to get this relief on a prompt basis.
  In a court of equity, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, 
having litigated extensively himself, it is possible to get a temporary 
restraining order, a TRO, on an ex parte basis by the filing of 
affidavits. When that is done, then there has to be a hearing within 5 
days where the moving party then seeks a preliminary injunction. Then 
the court hears the evidence and makes a determination as to a 
preliminary injunction, and then further hearings to make a 
determination as to a permanent injunction. I outline that very, very 
briefly to signify the speed that you can have action if you go into 
the Federal court.
  A court of equity is designed to provide prompt relief upon the 
showing of the requisite proofs. The difficulty with waiting for 
administrative action, action by the executive branch, is that we know 
as a matter of experience that the executive branch defers to foreign 
policy or defense policy.
  There is grave concern in the administration, expressed by a variety 
of administration officials, about what will happen to the Russian 
economy. Of course, there are grounds for concern about the Russian 
economy but not sufficient concerns so as to override what will happen 
to the American steel industry. What happens to the Russians is 
important but, frankly, not as important to this Senator as what 
happens to Pennsylvanians or to people in West Virginia or to people in 
Indiana, Ohio, or Illinois--to mention only a few of the States which 
are impacted by these subsidized and dumped goods.
  I am reminded, Mr. President, about an event back in 1984 when there 
was a favorable ruling for the steel industry from the International 
Trade Commission. The President had the authority to override that 
determination. My then colleague Senator Heinz and I made the rounds of 
the International Trade Representative, William Brock, and of the 
Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldrige, and we found great sympathy 
with having the laws of the United States and the international trade 
laws enforced. When we talked to the Secretary of State and the 
Secretary of Defense, they were more concerned about their problems--
foreign policy and defense policy. Ultimately, the President overruled 
the International Trade Commission to the detriment of the American 
steel industry. Regrettably, that is what happens.
  We have had meetings of the Steel Caucus with the key officials of 
the executive branch. When it comes to the Secretary of Commerce or the 
Trade Representative, there has been a certain amount of sympathy for 
the position of the steel industry.
  What we need to do is to take this issue out of international 
politics--politics at the highest level, where there are concerns for 
foreign policy or defense policy--and move it into court, where the 
rule of law will govern and where, on a showing that there is a 
violation of U.S. trade laws, a showing of a violation of international 
trade laws, and there is a remedy which is GATT consistent, which is to 
impose tariffs. The approach of having the tariffs then paid over to 
the damaged parties is an idea which was originated by the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, on legislation which 
he has introduced.
  When we had sought injunctive relief, it had been sufficient just to 
stop the steel from coming into the United States immediately, and then 
there would have been no further damage. That is not GATT consistent. 
It is GATT consistent to have duties imposed, and then if any steel 
comes in, those duties ought to be a deterrent to stop dumped and 
subsidized steel from coming into the United States. But to the extent 
any further steel comes in, those duties would be collected by the 
Treasury and then paid over to the injured parties--the steelworkers 
who have lost wages or lost their jobs, or the industry which has been 
damaged by this illegal dumping and this illegal subsidy.
  Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce legislation 
to provide for a private right of action for an injured party to sue in 
Federal court to stop goods from coming into this country which are 
subsidized, dumped or otherwise sold in violation of our trade laws. My 
legislation, the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 1999, is based on 
legislation I have introduced since 1982 and most recently during the 
103rd Congress in 1993.
  I have revised the legislation so that at the conclusion of the case 
and upon the finding of liability, the court will direct the Customs 
Service to assess an antidumping duty on the dumped or subsidized 
product. Duties collected will be distributed to steelworkers for 
damages sustained from loss of wages resulting from loss of jobs due to 
illegal imports, and the affected domestic producers of the product for 
qualifying expenditures which may include equipment, research and 
development, personnel training, acquisition of technology, health care 
benefits, pension benefits, environmental equipment, training or 
technology, acquisition of raw materials, or borrowed working capital.
  I am introducing this legislation to respond to the substantial 
dumping of foreign goods on the U.S. market, particularly steel. As 
Hank Barnette, chief executive officer of Bethlehem Steel, wrote as 
early as in an August 6, 1998 op-ed in the Washington Times, the United 
States has become ``The Dumping Ground'' for foreign steel. He noted 
that Russia has become the world's number one steel exporting nation 
and that China is now the world's number one steel-producing nation, 
while enormous subsidies to foreign steel. As one example, Mr. Barnette 
cited the Commerce Department's revelation that Russia, one of the 
world's least efficient producers, was selling steel plate in the 
United States at more than 50 percent or $110 per ton below the 
constructed cost to make this product, which ultimately costs our steel 
companies in lost sales and results in fewer jobs for American workers.
  As chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I am well aware that the 
current financial crisis in Asia and elsewhere has generated surges in 
U.S. imports of

[[Page 3565]]

steel. Recently released statistics by the Department of Commerce note 
that the year-to-date final statistics through November of 1998 show 
steel imports of 35.1 million metric tons, an increase of 8.7 million 
metric tons over the 26.4 million metric tons through November 1997. 
While the preliminary data on steel imports for December 1998 shows a 
decrease in imports of hot-rolled steel products, one month is not a 
trend. In fact, overall steel imports in 1998 were considerably higher 
than in 1997, and total imports of hot-rolled steel were up 73 percent 
from 1997 to 1998. The flooding of steel on the U.S. market from Asian 
countries, as well as countries of the former Soviet Union and Brazil, 
have led the Senate and House Steel Caucuses to hold joint hearings and 
receive testimony from steel company executives and union 
representatives on the growing problems of steel imports and their 
troubling effect on our economy and our ability to retain high-paying 
jobs.
  I believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling 
goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable 
profit. Where you have dumping--the sale of goods in the United States 
at prices lower than the price at which such goods are being sold by 
the producing companies in their own country or in some other country--
it is the antithesis of free trade. We have too long sacrificed 
American industry and American jobs in the name of foreign policy or 
defense policy, without having the proper enforcement of the laws 
because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration 
or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy 
and defense interests.
  For many years, foreign policy and defense policy have superseded 
basic fairness on trade policy. I received a comprehensive education on 
this subject back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling by the ITC 
for the American steel industry, but it was subject to review by the 
President. At that time my colleagues, Senator Heinz and I visited 
every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to get support to see to 
it that International Trade Commission ruling in favor of the American 
steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige 
was favorable, and International Trade Representative Bill Brock was 
favorable. We received a favorable hearing in all quarters until we 
spoke with then-Secretary of State Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense 
Weinberger who were absolutely opposed to the ITC ruling. President 
Reagan decided to overrule the ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers 
again took second place to foreign policy concerns.
  In the current environment, I believe more than ever that it is 
necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into 
federal court and seek enforcement of America's trade laws, which are 
currently not being enforced adequately by the executive branch.
  The only way to handle these important issues is to see to it that 
there is a private right of action, which is a time-honored approach in 
the context of antitrust law. I believe this is absolutely necessary if 
the steel industry and other U.S. industries subject to unfair foreign 
competition are to have fairness and to be able to stop foreign 
subsidized and dumped products from coming into this country.


                    current administrative remedies

  I have long been concerned about the export of subsidized or dumped 
goods to the U.S. market and its impact on U.S. jobs and industries. 
Even when our government does act aggressively to enforce U.S. trade 
laws, the process is extremely time consuming. It can take months after 
filing a dumping action for the Commerce Department to complete its 
investigations, from the summary investigation to determine the 
adequacy of the petition, to the formal investigation of the evidence 
presented. The Commerce Department then issues a preliminary 
determination that products are being sold in the United States at less 
than fair value. The Department must then make a final determination, 
which can consume several more months. In order to secure any relief, 
though, the International Trade Commission (ITC) must also 
independently review the case and make a determination about whether 
the imports materially injure, or threaten to injure, the U.S. 
industry. If the ITC finds injury or threat of injury, the Commerce 
Department instructs the Customs Service to collect antidumping duties.
  In the current hot-rolled carbon steel case currently before the 
Administration, the petitioners filed on September 30, 1998. The 
investigation by the Commerce Department's International Trade 
Administration was not initiated until October 15, 1998. On November 
23, 1998, the Commerce Department found ``critical circumstances'' in 
the case. Commerce determined that there was a surge in imports from 
Japan and Russia. This determination, coupled with the preliminary 
injury decision, allows the Commerce Department to assess duties 
retroactively 90 days from the preliminary determination. On February 
12, 1999, the Department of Commerce determined the preliminary dumping 
margin for Japan and Brazil. Later, on February 22, a preliminary 
dumping margin for Russia was determined. The Commerce Department then 
instructed U.S. Customs to require deposits or bonds on imported steel 
from these countries for 90 days prior to the dumping margin 
determination and for any steel from these countries brought in after 
the determination. The Department of Commerce is not expected to make a 
final determination until May 5, 1999; however, the assessment of 
duties is contingent on a favorable determination on injury to the 
domestic industry made by the International Trade Commission on June 
12, 1999.
  Assuming that all decisions are favorable, the petitioning industry 
will have waited for months before any action is taken to remedy the 
injury done to the industry and its workers. Therefore, a private right 
of action is necessary to enable our domestic industries to counter 
foreign subsidies, dumping, and customs fraud in a timely manner. My 
bill accomplishes this by providing timely relief by allowing for the 
recovery of tariffs as a result of the illegal import.
  We have seen a long history where American industries have been 
prejudiced, and American jobs have been lost, due to subsidized and 
dumped goods coming into this country. There is no adequate remedy at 
the present time to provide domestic industries with timely relief from 
the damage caused by such imports.


           history of the private right of action legislation

  Since entering the Senate, I have been actively involved on this 
issue. On March 4, 1982, I introduced S. 2167 to provide a private 
right of action in federal courts to enforce existing laws prohibiting 
illegal dumping or subsidizing of foreign imports. Hearings were held 
on this bill before the Judiciary Committee on May 24 and June 24, 
1982. On December 15, 1982, I offered the text of this bill on the 
Senate floors as an amendment, which was tabled by a slim margin of 51 
to 47.
  During the 96th Congress, I reintroduced this legislation as S. 416 
on February 3, 1983. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this 
bill on March 21, 1983. I offered the text of S. 418 as an amendment to 
the Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 on September 19, 1984; the 
amendment was tabled.
  During the 99th Congress, I reintroduced this legislation as S. 236; 
I expanded the scope of this bill to include customs fraud violations 
and introduced S. 1655 on September 18, 1985, and the Judiciary 
Committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote on March 
20, 1986. The Finance Subcommittee on International Trade held a 
hearing on S. 1655 pursuant to a sequential referral agreement. 
Significant progress was made toward reaching a unanimous consent 
agreement for full Senate consideration of S. 1655 prior to adjournment 
of the 99th Congress, but the press of other business prevented its 
coming to the floor for action.
  In the 100th Congress, I reintroduced comprehensive legislation, S. 
361, to provide a private right of action in Federal court to enforce 
existing laws prohibiting illegal dumping or customs fraud.

[[Page 3566]]

  I expanded the scope of this bill in S. 1396, which I introduced on 
June 19, 1987, to revise the subsidy provision to include a private 
right of action to allow injured American parties to sue in Federal 
court for injunctive relief against, and monetary damages from, foreign 
manufacturers and exporters who receive subsidies and any importer 
related to the manufacturer or exporter. This bill would have provided 
a comprehensive approach to address three of the most pernicious, 
unfair export strategies used by foreign companies against American 
companies: dumping, subsidies, and customs fraud.
  During full Senate consideration of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act (S. 490), I filed the text of S. 1396 as Amendment 
No. 315 on June 19, 1987, and offered it as an amendment to the trade 
bill on June 25, 1987. This amendment, however, was tabled. I again 
filed the text of this bill as an amendment to the Textile and Apparel 
Trade Act, S. 2662, on September 9, 1988, and to the Technical 
Corrections Act, S. 2238, on September 29, 1988.
  On July 15, 1987, I joined Senator Heinz as an original cosponsor of 
an amendment to S. 490 to provide a private right of action in the U.S. 
Court of International Trade for damages from customs fraud. Although 
the amendment was accepted by the Senate, it unfortunately was dropped 
in conference.
  In the 102nd Congress, I introduced similar legislation, S. 2508, 
because the Voluntary Restraint Agreements program was allowed to lapse 
in spite of the fact that no multilateral steel agreement was in place. 
In fact, as announced by the United States Trade Representative, talks 
on the steel accord had broken down. I might add that this was somewhat 
strange, Mr. President, if not incomprehensible. The steel industry had 
been awaiting an agreement on a multilateral steel accord which would 
have prevented subsidized and dumped goods from coming into the United 
States, and then there was a specific recognition by the Trade 
Representative, that the effort failed. Not to extend the voluntary 
restraint program at that time was a bit mystifying. In any event, the 
Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 2508 by unanimous voice vote 
on August 12, 1992. Again, the press of other business prevented the 
Senate from taking up this legislation on the floor.
  In the 103rd Congress, I introduced this legislation again, S. 332, 
in an effort to move the legislative process forward. The legislation 
was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but once again, the press of 
Senate business prevented further action on the bill.


                 UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION ACT OF 1999

  In the 104th Congress, Senator Kohl and I introduced legislation to 
criminalize economic espionage, which was ultimately enacted into law. 
The bill that I am introducing toady, the Unfair Foreign Competition 
Act of 1999 will help to combat another form of illegality--the illegal 
subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets, which 
steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies and economic 
growth from our economy.
  This legislation provides a private right of action in federal courts 
for individuals or corporations who have been injured by dumping, 
subsides, or customs fraud violations. The bill will enable industries 
to seek relief through the Federal courts to halt the illegal 
importation of products.
  There is nothing like the vigor of private plaintiffs when it comes 
to the enforcement of our trade laws. We need vigorous private 
enforcement--that this bill would spur--if we are to successfully chart 
a course between the grave dangers of increased protectionism and the 
certain peril which would result from unabated illegal foreign imports.
  I believe the bill I am introducing today would have an important 
deterrent effect on the practices of our foreign trading partners. 
Under this bill, an injured party could file suit in the U.S. federal 
district court for the District of Columbia or the Court of 
International Trade. If dumping or subsidies and injury are found, the 
court would then direct the Customs Service to assess duties on future 
importation of the article in question.
  Since current administrative remedies are not consistently and 
effectively enforced through the Commerce Department and the World 
Trade Organization, this private right of action is necessary to 
enforce the spirit of the law.
  A reason to support this bill lies in its simplicity. We can enact 
this legislation immediately without interfering with or precluding 
more complex set of initiatives. The essence of this bill is to promote 
enforcement of existing trade laws and agreements, and, therefore, use 
our existing trade laws as our best defense against unfair foreign 
practices. My bill will free private enterprise to pursue remedies 
without delay and put a halt to many discriminatory trade practices.
  I ask my colleagues to join me now in supporting this legislation to 
provide relief to he unfair trade practices which constrain our 
nation's industry. We should be proud of the many improvements made by 
our industrial base over the past decade. Our corporations invested 
capital and the quality of our products has risen dramatically; 
however, our nation's workers have suffered significant job losses 
while our corporations have tried to become more lean and competitive. 
Clearly our business sector and each and every American has 
participated in and borne the burden of improving our competitive 
position.
  Even these significant advances however, are insufficient to compete 
in the face of illegal trade practices such as dumping, subsidies, and 
customs fraud. The best way to handle these trade issues is to provide 
a private right of action which will allow U.S. industries the ability 
to stop foreign subsidies and dumping on the U.S. market in a timely 
fashion.

                          ____________________