[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3736-3752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE NEW MILLENNIUM CLASSROOMS ACT

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Wyden, 
Hatch, Kerrey, Coverdell, Daschle, Jeffords, Lieberman, Allard, Gorton, 
McConnell, and Burns in introducing the New Millennium Classrooms Act. 
This legislation will effectively encourage the donation of computer 
equipment and software to schools through tax deductions and credits. 
In addition, enhanced tax credits would be applied to equipment donated 
to schools within designated empowerment zones, enterprise communities, 
and Indian reservations.
  Advanced technology has fueled unprecedented economic growth and 
transformed the way Americans do business and communicate with each 
other. Despite these gains, this same technology is just beginning to 
have an impact on our classrooms and how we educate our children. It is 
projected that 60 percent of all jobs will require high-tech computer 
skills by the year 2000, yet 32 percent of our public schools have only 
one classroom with access to the Internet.
  Mr. President, it is imperative that we act now to provide our 
nation's students with the necessary technological background so they 
can succeed in tomorrow's high-tech workplace and ensure our country's 
future position in competitive world markets.
  The Department of Education recommends that there be at least one 
computer for every five students. According to the Educational Testing 
Service, in 1997, there was only one computer for every 24 students, on 
average. Not only are our classrooms sadly under-equipped, but even 
those classrooms with computers often have systems which are so old and 
outdated they are unable to run even the most basic software programs, 
are not multi-media capable and cannot access the Internet. Mr. 
President, one of the more common computers in our schools today is the 
Apple IIc, a computer so archaic it is now on display at the 
Smithsonian.
  While this technological deficiency affects all of our schools, the 
students who are in the most need are receiving the least amount of 
computer instruction and exposure.
  According to the Secretary of Education, 75.9 percent of households 
with an annual income over $75,000 have computers, compared to only 11 
percent of households with incomes under $10,000. This disparity exists 
when comparing households with Internet access as well. While 42 
percent of families with annual incomes over $75,000 have on-line 
capability, only 10 percent of families with incomes $25,000 or less 
can access the Internet from their homes.
  Rural areas and inner cities fall below the national average for 
households that have computers.
  Nationwide, 40.8 percent of white households have computers, while 
only 19 percent of African-American and Hispanic households do. This 
disparity is increasing, not decreasing. And, Mr. President, this 
unfortunate trend is not confined simply to individual households, it 
is present in our schools as well.
  Education should be a great equalizer, providing the means by which 
Americans can take advantage of all the opportunities this country can 
offer, regardless of background. Yet, Educational Testing Service 
statistics show schools with 81 percent or more economically 
disadvantaged students have only one multi-media computer for every 32 
students, while a school with 20 percent or fewer economically 
disadvantaged students will have a multi-media computer for every 22 
students. That is a difference of 10 students per computer. 
Furthermore, schools with 90 percent or more minority students have 
only one multimedia computer for every 30 students.
  Mr. President, this is simply unacceptable.
  The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 contains a provision, The 21st 
Century Classrooms of 1997, which allows a corporation to take a 
deduction from taxable income for the donation of computer technology, 
equipment and software.
  Unfortunately, since The 21st Century Classrooms Act of 1997 has been 
implemented, there has not been a significant increase in corporate 
donations of computers and related equipment to K-12 schools. The 
current incentives do not provide enough tax relief to outweigh the 
costs incurred by the donors. Moreover, the restrictions limiting the 
age of eligible equipment to two years or less and the narrow 
definition of ``original use'' has greatly limited the number of 
computers available for qualified donation. As a result, the Detwiler 
Foundation, a California-based organization with unparalleled

[[Page 3737]]

status as a facilitator of computer donations to K-12 schools 
nationwide, reports they ``have not witnessed the anticipated increase 
in donation activity'' since the enactment of the 1997 tax deduction.
  Mr. President, to increase the amount of technology donated to 
schools, the New Millennium Classrooms Act would expand the parameters 
of the current tax deduction and add a tax credit, which operates like 
the R&D tax credit. Specifically, the bill would do the following:
  First, this legislation would allow a tax credit equal to 30 percent 
of the fair market value of the donated computer equipment. An 
increased tax credit provides greater incentive for companies to donate 
computer technology and equipment to schools. This includes computers, 
peripheral equipment, software and fiber optic cable related to 
computer use.
  Second, it would expand the age limit to include equipment three 
years old or less. Many companies do not update their equipment within 
the two year period. This provision increases the availability of 
eligible equipment. Three year old computers equipped with Pentium-
based or equivalent chips have the processing power, memory, and 
graphics capabilities to provide sufficient Internet and multi-media 
access and run any necessary software.
  Third, the current limitation on ``original use'' would be expanded 
to include the original equipment manufacturers or any corporation that 
reacquires the equipment. By expanding the number of donors eligible 
for the tax credit, the number of computers available will increase as 
well.
  Lastly, enhanced tax credits equal to 50 percent of the fair market 
value of the equipment donated to schools located within designated 
empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and Indian reservations 
would be implemented. Doubling the amount of the tax credits for 
donations made to schools in economically-distressed areas will 
increase the availability of computers to the children that need it 
most.
  Bringing our classrooms into the 21st century will require a major 
national investment. According to a Rand Institute study, it will cost 
$15 billion, or $300 per student, to provide American schools with the 
technology needed to educate our youth; the primary cost being the 
purchase and installation of computer equipment. At a time when the 
government is planning to spend $1.2 billion to wire schools and 
libraries to the Internet, the demand for this sophisticated hardware 
will be greater than ever.
  The Detwiler Foundation estimates that if just 10 percent of the 
computers that are taken out of service each year were donated to 
schools, the national ratio of students-to-computers would be brought 
to five-to-one or less. This would meet, or even exceed, the ratio 
recommended by the Department of Education.
  The New Millennium Classrooms Act will provide powerful tax 
incentives for American businesses to donate top quality high-tech 
equipment to our nation's classrooms without duly increasing Federal 
Government expenditures or creating yet another federal program or 
department. Encouraging private investment and involvement, this Act 
will keep control where it belongs--with the teachers, the parents, and 
the students.
  This bill is not simply another ``targeted tax break.'' Broad-based 
tax relief and reform efforts should work to lower tax rates across the 
board while continuing to retain and improve upon the core tax 
incentives for education, homeownership, and charitable contributions. 
The New Millennium Classrooms Act expands the parameters and thus the 
effectiveness of an already existing education and charity tax 
incentive, one which will effectively bring top-of-the-line technology 
into all of our schools.
  With the passage of the New Millennium Classrooms Act, all our 
children will have an equal chance at succeeding in the new 
technological millennium.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section by 
section analysis, and a letter from the Detwiler Foundation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 542

       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 ``New Millennium Classrooms 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEDUCTION FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) Extension of Age of Eligible Computers.--Section 
     170(e)(6)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining qualified elementary or secondary educational 
     contribution) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``3 years'', and
       (2) by inserting ``for the taxpayer's own use'' after 
     ``constructed by the taxpayer''.
       (b) Reacquired Computers Eligible for Donation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 170(e)(6)(B)(iii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified elementary or 
     secondary educational contribution) is amended by inserting 
     ``, the person from whom the donor reacquires the property,'' 
     after ``the donor''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 170(e)(6)(B)(ii) of such 
     Code is amended by inserting ``or reaquired'' after 
     ``acquired''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years ending 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS.

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

     ``SEC. 45D. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the school 
     computer donation credit determined under this section is an 
     amount equal to 30 percent of the qualified elementary or 
     secondary educational contributions (as defined in section 
     170(e)(6)(B)) made by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Increased Percentage for Contributions to Schools in 
     Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Indian 
     Reservations.--In the case of a qualified elementary or 
     secondary educational contribution (as so defined) to an 
     educational organization or entity located in an empowerment 
     zone or enterprise community designated under section 1391 or 
     an Indian reservation (as defined in section 168(j)(6)), 
     subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `50 percent' 
     for `30 percent'.
       ``(c) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of section 41(f) shall apply.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning on or after the date which is 3 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the New Millennium Classrooms 
     Act.
       (b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(13) the school computer donation credit determined under 
     section 45D(a).''
       (c) Disallowance of Deduction by Amount of Credit.--Section 
     280C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     certain expenses for which credits are allowable) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Credit for School Computer Donations.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed for that portion of the qualified elementary 
     or secondary educational contributions (as defined in section 
     170(e)(6)(B)) made during the taxable year that is equal to 
     the amount of credit determined for the taxable year under 
     section 45D(a). In the case of a corporation which is a 
     member of a controlled group of corporations (within the 
     meaning of section 52(a)) or a trade or business which is 
     treated as being under common control with other trades or 
     businesses (within the meaning of section 52(b)), this 
     subsection shall be applied under rules prescribed by the 
     Secretary similar to the rules applicable under subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 52.''
       (d) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback 
     and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(9) No carryback of school computer donation credit 
     before effective date.--No amount of unused business credit 
     available under section 45D may be carried back to a taxable 
     year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph.''
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting

[[Page 3738]]

     after the item relating to section 45C the following:

``Sec. 45D. Credit for computer donations to schools.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


     Section-by-Section Analysis--The New Millennium Classrooms Act

       A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
     the deduction for computer donations to schools and to allow 
     a tax credit for donated computers.
     Section 1. Short title
       This section provides that the act may be cited as the 
     ``New Millennium Classrooms Act''
     Section 2. Expansion of deduction for computer donations to 
         schools
       This section extends the age of eligible computers from two 
     years to three years of age.
       In addition, the scope of ``original use'' is expanded to 
     include not only the donor or the donee, but the person from 
     whom the donor reacquires the property as well.
       The amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     contributions made in taxable years ending after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
     Section 3. Credit for computer donations to schools
       This section establishes that the school computer donation 
     credit shall be an amount equal to 30 percent of the fair 
     market value of the qualified contribution.
       In addition, the school computer donation credit is 
     enhanced for contributions made to schools located within 
     designated empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and 
     Indian reservations. The school computer donation credit 
     shall be an amount 50 percent of the fair market value of the 
     qualified contribution.
       This section shall not apply to taxable years beginning on 
     or after the date which is three years after the date of 
     enactment of the New Millennium Classrooms Act.
       This section includes a disallowance of the existing tax 
     deduction by the amount of the tax credit, stating that no 
     deduction shall be allowed for that portion of the qualified 
     contribution that is equal to the amount of the tax credit.
       Lastly, no amount of unused business credit available may 
     be carried back to a taxable year beginning on or before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       The amendments made by the sections shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                          The Detwiler Foundation,


                                Computers for Schools Program,

                                      La Jolla, CA, March 3, 1999.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: I am writing you because of the 
     Detwiler Foundation's unparalleled status as a facilitator of 
     computer donations to K-12 schools across the United States. 
     Our experience--eight years in computer solicitation, 
     refurbishing and placement, working through various types of 
     facilities in states across the nation--leaves us uniquely 
     qualified to provide perspective on computer donation 
     history, process and trends. Because of our depth of 
     knowledge in this area, it has been requested that we offer 
     information and insight on legislation that may be coming 
     before you this year.
       As you move into the heart of the nation's legislative 
     workload for 1999 we understand that many different issues 
     will be on the agenda. The Detwiler Foundation Computers for 
     Schools Program is dedicated to increasing and enhancing 
     school technology available across the nation. As you might 
     imagine, we are keenly interested in all matters that help us 
     support that goal. Perhaps as you consider legislation for 
     this session you will examine existing statutes for 
     charitable contributions of computers and computer equipment 
     to schools and education-benefit organizations like ours.
       Two years ago Congress enacted the 21st Century Classrooms 
     Act as part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997 (HR2014). This 
     provision allows corporations that donate computers to 
     qualified organizations (schools and education-benefit non-
     profits) to receive an enhanced charitable contribution tax 
     deduction. The Detwiler Foundation welcomed this legislation 
     and considered it a significant development in our efforts to 
     support a computer-literate and technologically-prepared 
     society.
       While we remain unqualifiedly grateful to the sponsors and 
     supporters of the 21st Century provision, we have not 
     witnessed the anticipated increase in donation activity. We 
     have been told by companies in a position to utilize the 
     legislation that, for the most part, it does not fully meet 
     their business cycle needs. We have also come to understand 
     that, even though company executives work hard to serve their 
     communities and the nation--and often succeed in so doing--
     they still must ultimately answer to their shareholders. The 
     current legislation, they say, does not offer them 
     significant assistance in that responsibility.
       The Detwiler Foundation suggests that an expansion of the 
     current code will bring about the results sought by the 
     authors of the 21st Century Classrooms Act while maintaining 
     the budgetary responsibility these times demand. Our 
     experience to this point is that no donors to our program 
     have been able to apply provisions of the current code to 
     their donations. In other words, donations have not attached 
     to the Balanced Budget offset outlay made for the existing 
     legislation. It is our firm belief that the following 
     amendments will meet the goals of the legislation while 
     maintaining fiscal responsibility.
       Expand the ``eligible equipment'' provision to include 
     computers three (3) years old or less.
       Provide donors shall a contribution credit against taxable 
     income equal to a percentage of the original basis of the 
     donated equipment. There should be a greater credit for 
     contributions to schools in federally-recognized empowerment 
     zones.
       Offer the enhanced benefit to all IRS-designated (``C'' and 
     ``Subchapter S'') corporations.
       Allow donee or facilitator to enhance and upgrade equipment 
     as is reasonable and necessary and recover the cost of work 
     done to add value to the equipment in addition to recovering 
     the cost for shipping, installation and transfer.
       Make the legislation effective January 1, 2000 and extend 
     its lifetime through December 31, 2004.
       The Detwiler Foundation addresses this issue as an 
     organization working with state governments and local 
     entities in every part of the nation. While we have no 
     statistical evidence to certify this, we are as we understand 
     it (and as is generally conceded) the single most prolific 
     source of donated computers for schools across the nation. 
     Last year we coordinated more than 12,000 computer donations. 
     Furthermore, we have been facilitating these contributions 
     since 1991. Our program has become the model for many other 
     agencies now involved in soliciting and providing computers 
     for schools. It is from that vantage point that we provide 
     our insights and observations.
       We offer these suggested changes to the legislation after 
     having estimated the financial impact of these changes. This 
     estimate is based on our experience and our informed 
     perspective--you will find a copy accompanying this letter. 
     In coming to our conclusions, we attempted to be what we 
     consider generous, or even liberal, in our assignments of 
     applicable donations, facilitators and receiving schools and 
     tax credits. In other words, we have attempted to err on the 
     ``high'' or most expensive side in this equation. We believe 
     the actual costs to government coffers will be substantially 
     less than our educated guess.
       Thank you for your time and consideration, and the very 
     best to you as you tackle this session's legislative agenda.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jerry Grayson,
                                                Regional Director.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues Senators 
Abraham and Wyden to introduce the New Millennium Classrooms Act.
  Technology is a wonderful thing. It increases our productivity, 
enhances the way we communicate with each other, and opens up access to 
whole new worlds at the click of a finger.
  It is becoming an integral part of the way America does business. Our 
economy has become more and more globalized. Our jobs, our cars, and 
our toys are more and more high-tech. Computers have become such a big 
part of American business that it has been projected that 60 percent of 
American jobs will require high-tech computer skills by 2000--just next 
year.
  Unfortunately, there is an important part of our society that has not 
kept pace with this technology craze--our schools. We are falling 
dismally short of meeting the Department of Education's recommendation 
of 1 computer per 5 students. American schools had an average of just 1 
computer per 24 students in 1997.
  Not only are there too few computers in the classrooms, but those 
that are there are old and outdated, unable to run today's software and 
applications. In fact, the most popular model of computer in our 
schools is the Apple IIc. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this 
computer, you can see one just down the street in the Smithsonian.
  Too many of today's schoolchildren are missing out on one of the 
greatest advancements in computer applications--the Internet. Thirty-
two percent of our public schools have only one classroom with access 
to the Internet. This is not right. Our kids deserve the cutting edge 
of technology, not the 21st century equivalent of chalk and slates.
  In 1997, Congress recognized the need for more and better computers 
in our

[[Page 3739]]

schools enacting a corporate charitable tax deduction for school 
computer donations. Unfortunately, the deduction was crafted narrowly 
with various restrictions and limitations so that we have not seen a 
significant increase in computer donations to our schools.
  The New Millennium Classrooms Act is designed to address the 
shortcomings of the current deduction by expanding limits on the 
deduction and adding a tax credit equal to thirty percent of the fair 
market value of the donated computer equipment. This provides greater 
incentives for corporations to donate computer technology and equipment 
to our schools.
  Allowing computer manufacturers to donate computers and other 
equipment returned to them through trade-ins or leasing programs will 
expand both the number of eligible donors and the qualified equipment 
to be donated.
  An enhanced 50 percent tax credit for donations to schools located in 
empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and Indian reservations will 
help to address the growing technology gap between our urban and rural, 
rich and poor schools. This will help focus the donations to those kids 
who need the technology the most, to those kids who are less likely to 
have a computer at home.
  A good education for our children is the key to the future of our 
country. Without current computers and equipment in our schools, we 
cannot keep our kids on the cutting edge of technology where they 
belong. This bill contains real incentives for private organizations to 
get involved and donate computers and equipment to schools in order to 
help educate our children. This is important to our kids, our schools, 
and our future. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Hagel, 
        Ms. Collins, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 543. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic 
information with respect to health insurance; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


     Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues 
Senators Jeffords, Frist, and Hagel in introducing the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. I first 
introduced this legislation in the 104th Congress, in conjunction with 
Representative Louise Slaughter in the House. Since then I have worked 
extensively with many of my colleagues to ensure that this legislation 
effectively addresses the need for protections against genetic 
discrimination in the health insurance industry. This bill builds on 
and improves the language included in the Patients' Bill of Rights--
Plus (S. 300).
  Progress in the field of genetics is accelerating at a breathtaking 
pace. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that scientists could 
accurately identify the genes associated with cystic fibrosis, cancer, 
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases? Today scientists can, and as a 
result doctors are increasingly better able to identify predispositions 
to certain diseases based on the results of genetic testing. These 
results mean that doctors are better able to successfully treat and 
manage many diseases. Scientific advances hold tremendous promise for 
the approximately 15 million people affected by the over 4,000 
currently-known genetic disorders, and the millions more who are 
carriers of genetic diseases who may pass them on to their children. In 
fact, just this month scientists reported that one of the genes 
implicated in advanced breast cancer is also related to the final 
stages of prostate cancer. Because science progresses my legislation 
has not remained static and it represents the best of genetic 
advancements and the most comprehensive definitions of genetic issues. 
I have been working hard with experts in the genetics field, Chairman 
of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Senator Jim 
Jeffords, Senator Bill Frist, and Senator Chuck Hagel to improve upon 
the language included in the Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus. Today's 
bill is the result of an enormous amount of time and effort, and I want 
to thank my three colleagues for their willingness to devote so much of 
their attention to this important issue.
  Unfortunately as our knowledge of genetics and genetic predisposition 
to disease has increased, so has the potential for discrimination in 
health insurance based on genetic information. In addition to the 
potentially devastating consequences health insurance denials based on 
genetic information can have on American families, the fear of 
discrimination has equally harmful consequences for consumers and for 
scientific research. But genetics still isn't an exact science. We all 
must remember that prediction does not mean certainty. For example, the 
Alzheimer's gene has less than a 35 percent prediction certainty. 
Science has not yet progressed to the point where it can tell us 
definitely and without doubt what will happen if a mutation is found 
and it is this uncertainty that makes our legislation so very, very 
important.
  As a legislator who has worked for many years on the issue of breast 
cancer, and as a woman with a history of breast cancer in her family, I 
continue to be amazed and delighted with the treatment advances based 
on the discoveries of two genes related to breast cancer--BRCA1 and 
BRCA2. Keep in mind that women who inherit mutated forms of either gene 
have an 85 percent risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime, 
and a 50 percent risk of developing ovarian cancer. Not very good odds.
  Although there is no known treatment to ensure that women who carry 
the mutated gene do not develop breast cancer, genetic testing makes it 
possible for carriers of these mutated genes to take extra precautions 
such as mammograms, self-examinations, and even enrollment in research 
studies in order to detect cancer at its earliest stages. Many women 
who might take extra precautions if they knew they had the breast 
cancer gene may not seek testing because they fear losing their health 
insurance. And what are the implications when women are afraid of 
having a genetic test--or testing their daughters?
  The implications are simply devastating. One of my constituents from 
Hampden, Maine put it best:

       I'm a third generation [breast cancer] survivor and as of 
     last October I have nine immediate women in my family that 
     have been diagnosed with breast cancer * * *. I want my 
     daughters to be able to live a normal life and not worry 
     about breast cancer. I want to have the BRCA test [for breast 
     cancer] done but because of the insurance risk for my 
     daughters' future I don't dare.

  Nine women in Bonnie Lee Tucker's family have breast cancer, yet the 
fear of discrimination was so strong that she would forgo testing that 
could potentially save her own or her daughters' lives.
  Patients like Bonnie Lee Tucker may be unwilling to disclose 
information about their genetic status to their physicians out of fear, 
hindering treatment or preventive efforts. And though it could save her 
life or the life of one of her daughters she is unwilling to 
participate in potentially ground-breaking research trials because she 
does not want to reveal information about their genetic status and is 
afraid of losing her health insurance. Bonnie Lee Tucker should not 
have to bet her life and the life of her daughter this way.
  Americans should not live in fear of knowing the truth about their 
health status. They should not be afraid that critical health 
information could be misused. They should not be forced to choose 
between insurance coverage and critical health information that can 
help inform their decisions. They should not fear disclosing their 
genetic status to their doctors. And they should not fear participating 
in medical research.
  We must ensure that people who are insured for the very first time, 
or who become insured after a long period of being uninsured, do not 
face genetic discrimination. We must ensure that people are not charged 
exorbitant premiums based on such information. We must ensure that 
insurance companies cannot discriminate against individuals who have 
requested or received genetic services. We must ensure that insurance 
companies cannot release a person's genetic information without

[[Page 3740]]

their prior written consent. And we must ensure that health insurance 
companies cannot carve out covered services because of an inherited 
genetic disorder. Our bill does just that.
  As the Senate moves forward with the Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus 
we must focus on this important issue and should act as quickly as 
possible to put a halt to the unfair practice of discriminating on the 
basis of genetic information, and to ensure that safeguards are in 
place to protect the privacy of genetic information.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to 
introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance 
Act of 1999 with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Hagel, and 
Collins. We have worked diligently on this legislation for several 
years to bring this issue to the forefront of the Congressional agenda 
and to craft a solid piece of legislation that will provide patients 
with real protections against genetic discrimination in health 
insurance.
  Scientists anticipate that the entire human genome will be completely 
decoded within the next few years. This unprecedented accomplishment 
will usher in a new era in our understanding of diseases that afflict 
all Americans and is bound to expand our understanding of human 
development, health and disease. Ultimately, our hope is that medical 
science will capitalize on these scientific advances to promote the 
health and well-being of our citizens.
  It is the discovery of ``disease genes'' that provides the eye of the 
current legislative storm. Scientists have already identified genes 
that are associated with increased risk of certain diseases including: 
breast cancer, colon cancer and Alzheimer`s dementia. In time, more 
genes will be linked to risk of future disease. While early knowledge 
of disease risk is imperative to our ability to take measures to 
prevent disease, many fear some form of retribution for carrying 
``bad'' genes and, therefore, refuse testing. Discrimination in health 
insurance, either by denial of coverage or excessive premium rates, is 
the major concern of most individuals. For example, nearly a third of 
women offered a test for breast cancer risk at the National Institutes 
of Health declined citing concerns about health insurance 
discrimination.
  Biomedical research and scientific progress march on and do not pause 
for social and public policy debate and legislation. The escalating 
speed of genetic discovery mandates that Congress act now to prohibit 
discrimination against healthy individuals who may have a genetic 
predisposition to disease. The bill I have been working on with 
Senators Snowe and Jeffords prohibits group health plans or health 
insurance issuers from adjusting premiums based on predictive genetic 
information regarding an individual. In the individual insurance 
market, our bill prohibits health insurance issuers from using 
predictive genetic information to deny coverage or to set premium 
rates. Furthermore, insurers are prohibited from requesting predictive 
genetic information or requiring an individual to undergo genetic 
testing. If genetic information is requested for diagnosis of disease, 
or treatment and payment for services, health insurers are required to 
provide patients a description of the procedures in place to safeguard 
the confidentiality of such information.
  The deciphering of the human genome presents an unparalleled 
opportunity to more completely understand disease processes and cures. 
We want patients to benefit from our investment in biomedical research 
and fully utilize medical advancements to improve their health. This 
will not be possible unless individuals are willing to be tested. 
Patients must feel safe from repercussions based on their genetic 
profile. Prohibition of genetic discrimination in insurance will remove 
the greatest barrier to testing and thus further accelerate our 
scientific progress.
  My Senate colleagues and I are in the process of scrutinizing the 
quality of the medical care in our country. Increasing access to health 
care and improving the quality of that care are two cornerstones of the 
Senate Republican Patients' Bill of Rights (S.300/S.326). I believe 
that quality is best achieved when patients and their care givers can 
make fully informed decisions regarding different treatment options. In 
addition, the essence of a long and productive life is the adoption of 
healthy habits including preventative measures based on disease risk 
assessment. As a result, testing for genetic risk becomes an 
indispensable part of quality health care--which is why Senators Snowe, 
Jeffords, Hagel, Collins, and I felt strongly that genetic 
discrimination provisions must be included our Patients' Bill of 
Rights. Patients must not forgo genetic testing because of fear of 
discrimination in insurance. We have the opportunity--we have the 
duty--to dispel the threat of discrimination based on an individual's 
genetic heritage. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact 
these provisions this year as the health care debate moves forward.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I introduce 
the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 
1999,'' with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Frist, Hagel, and Collins. 
These protections will give all Americans the assurance that the 
scientific breakthroughs in genetics testing are only used to improve 
an individual's health and not as a new means of discrimination.
  On May 21st of last year, I held a Labor and Human Resources 
Committee hearing on ``Genetic Information and Health Care,'' which 
proved to be one of the most important of the Committee's hearing 
during the 105th Congress. At that hearing, the Committee was presented 
information regarding the enormous health benefits that genetic testing 
research may contribute to health care, particularly in preventative 
medicine. Additionally, we heard compelling testimony from witnesses 
who fear that genetic testing will be used to discriminate against 
individuals with asmyptomatic conditions and to deny them the access to 
health insurance coverage that they have traditionally enjoyed.
  Following that hearing, I directed my staff to work with the offices 
of Senator Frist and the other members of the Labor Committee, together 
with the office of Senator Snowe, to draft legislation that build on 
Senator Snowe's bill, S. 89, to ensure that individuals would be able 
to control the use of their predictive genetic information. The results 
of these efforts are reflected in the genetic information provisions of 
S. 300, ``The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act.''
  Our legislation addresses the concerns that were raised at the 
hearing:
  1. It prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies in 
all markets from adjusting premiums on the basis of predictive genetic 
information.
  2. Prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies from 
requesting predictive genetic information as a condition of enrollment.
  3. It allows plans to request--but not require--that an individual 
disclose or authorize the collection of predictive genetic information 
for diagnosis, treatment, or payment purposes. In addition, as part of 
the request, the group health plans or health insurance companies must 
provide individuals with a description of the procedures in place to 
safeguard the confidentiality of the information.
  For a society, it is often said, demography is destiny. But for an 
individual, as we are learning more and more, it is DNA that is 
destiny. Each week, it seems, scientists decipher another peace of the 
genetic code, opening doors to greater understanding of how our bodies 
work, how they fail, and how they might be cured.
  Everyday we read of new discoveries resulting from the work being 
conducted at the National Center for Human Genome Research. As our body 
of scientific knowledge about genetics, increases, so, too, do the 
concerns about how this information may be used. There is no question 
that our understanding of genetics has brought us to the brink of a new 
future. Our challenge as a Congress will be to help ensure that our 
society reaps the full health benefits of genetic testing and

[[Page 3741]]

also to put to rest any concerns that the information will be used as a 
new tool to discriminate against specific ethnic groups or individual 
Americans.
  With the enactment of the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in 
Health Insurance Act of 1999'' as a part of S. 300--``The Patients' 
Bill of Rights Plus Act''--we will be able to ensure that these 
scientific breakthroughs stimulated by the Human Genome Project will be 
used to provide better health for all members of our society and not as 
a means of discrimination.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 545. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


     The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1999

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Administration's 1999 Reauthorization bill at the request of 
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater. I introduce it so that it can 
be part of the debates on the future of our aviation system. There are 
many provisions that I do not support and the Secretary understands 
this. However, the FAA needs adequate funding. The money is in the 
Airport and Airways Trust Fund--we just need to unlock it.
  The items which concern me include the PFC and doing away with the 
High Density Rule and fees. Furthermore, I take issue with the 
Performance Based Organization though I recognize that many segments of 
the industry support it. We will not privatize the ATC System, but we 
must make sure FAA has the tools and money to do its job.
  I intend to work with the Secretary and Senators McCain, Rockefeller, 
and Gorton to accomplish this common goal.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Hollings, I 
am introducing the Administration's legislative proposal for 
reauthorizing the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration. I do 
so at the request of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater who is 
eager to have the Senate consider his key initiatives.
  Among other provisions, the bill includes a number of initiatives 
that will be beneficial to small communities, modeled in part after S. 
379, the Air Service Restoration Act, which I introduced earlier this 
year, along with Senators Dorgan, Wyden, Harkin, and Bingaman. Several 
of these provisions also have been incorporated into the FAA 
reauthorization bill, S. 82, which has been favorably reported by the 
Commerce Committee.
  Many of my colleagues share my own commitment to addressing the 
critical needs and concerns of small communities--the challenges they 
face in general, and the lack of air service in particular. I am very 
pleased that the Secretary's bill offers leadership in this area.
  I must also point out, however, that there are other areas of the 
Administration's bill that I am reserving judgment on and may not be 
able to support. The Secretary is aware of my concerns, and I want to 
work with him and my colleagues on crafting a meaningful legislative 
package to reform the FAA, strengthen the Airport Improvement Program, 
enhance aviation competition and address the needs of small 
communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 546. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for 100 percent of the health insurance costs of self-
employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.


            The Health Insurance Cost Tax Equity Act of 1999

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Health 
Insurance Cost Tax Equity Act of 1999, to immediately put our nation's 
sole proprietors on par with their larger corporate competitors with 
respect to the tax treatment of their health insurance costs, without 
any further delay.
  I have argued for some time that it's indefensible that our federal 
tax laws tell some of our biggest corporations that they can deduct 100 
percent of their health insurance costs, while others, mostly smaller 
businesses, are told they can deduct only a smaller share of their 
health insurance costs. Although we've recently made some progress in 
addressing this problem, the appropriate solution remains elusive.
  Moreover, the reasons for promptly correcting this tax inequity are 
even more urgent today as many small businesses, especially our family 
farmers, are now facing the financial struggles of their lives. Not 
only is continued delay of this equitable tax treatment unacceptable 
for family farmers and ranchers whose documented risks in business are 
reflected in higher health costs, but it's also diverting resources 
away from the operations of farms, ranches and Main Street businesses 
in rural America at a time when many simply can't afford it.
  Over the past several years, Congress has taken some steps in 
addressing this unfair disparity in the deductibility of health 
insurance costs by allowing sole proprietors to deduct a larger share 
of their health insurance costs. But we've been taking steps that are 
too small and too slow. This year, sole proprietors may deduct only 60-
percent of their health insurance costs for tax purposes. This glaring 
unfairness is scheduled to be fixed by the year 2003, when our nation's 
small business owners will finally be able to claim a 100-percent 
deduction, just like large corporations already enjoy. But this is 
simply too late for many small businesses.
  We can no longer delay providing this tax relief because many of the 
self-employed who would benefit from it--including farmers and 
ranchers--are struggling through the worst farm crisis in memory. 
That's why my legislation would provide farmers, ranchers and other 
sole proprietors a full, 100-percent tax deduction for this year's 
health insurance costs.
  Mr. President, the health of a farm family or small business owner is 
no less important than the health of the president of a large 
corporation, and the Internal Revenue Code should reflect this simple 
fact now. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join 
me in immediately ending this tax inequity at the first available 
opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Biden, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 547. A bill to authorize the President to enter into agreements to 
provide regulatory credit for voluntary early action to mitigate 
potential environmental impacts from greenhouse gas emissions; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                  Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Mack, 
Lieberman, Warner, Moynihan, and a host of others to introduce the 
Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act of 1999.
  This bipartisan legislation addresses a major disincentive that is 
preventing voluntary, cost-effective, and near-term actions by U.S. 
entities to reduce the threat of global climate change. In a word, this 
disincentive is uncertainty. Let me explain.
  There is growing certainty in the international scientific community, 
and indeed within our own business community, that human actions may 
eventually cause harmful disturbances to our global climate system. 
Unfortunately, no one in the business world or the Congress knows for 
sure what, if anything, might be done in the future to stabilize 
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
gases.
  Will the 1997 Kyoto Protocol ever be ratified and implemented in the 
United States? Many, particularly here on Capitol Hill, believe not. If 
the Kyoto Protocol is never implemented, will something else replace 
it? More persons than not think this is a real possibility.
  Will the United States ever reach the point where greenhouse gas 
mitigation is legally required? Observers on all

[[Page 3742]]

sides of this debate, irrespective of their preference, will concede 
that there is a reasonable probability of future government regulation 
in one form or another. Or, at least there is no guarantee that 
mandatory action will never be imposed.
  But when might such government requirements take effect? How would 
they be designed? Finally, who will be subjected to them? What emission 
sources might be exempted? No one can answer these questions 
definitively. And such inquiries will likely go unanswered for a 
considerable amount of time into the future.
  While the Credit for Voluntary Reductions legislation does not 
introduce, encourage, or suggest in any way the need for a regulatory 
program--the fact remains that none of us can predict what will happen 
scientifically or politically on the climate change issue over the next 
several years or decades.
  In the face of this policy uncertainty, it is easy to understand why 
many corporate leaders and small businessmen alike are reluctant to 
take big steps--even if certain voluntary actions improve their bottom 
line. Business leaders, with history as their guide, are worried that 
their own government will discount or not credit these good, but 
voluntary deeds under some potential, future regulatory regime.
  They fear that, after all is said and done, they will have been 
forced to spend twice as much to control pollutants as their laggard 
competitors. In the face of this uncertainty, business may be inclined 
to wait to reduce emissions until after the diplomatic, political, and 
regulatory dust has cleared. Meanwhile, billions more tons of 
greenhouse gases are released by man into the atmosphere every year--
and important, cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions may be 
lost.
  It is this uncertainty, this regulatory and financial risk, that our 
legislation is intended to diminish.
  The proposal clears the way for voluntary projects that otherwise 
might not go forward. It is designed to reduce the current uncertainty 
and risk faced by potentially regulated entities to the government. 
This legislation gets the government out of the way so that the 
marketplace may determine new and cost-effective ways to do business 
while emitting less.
  How does the legislation work? We authorize the President to enter 
into greenhouse gas reduction agreements with entities operating in the 
United States.
  Once executed, these agreements will provide credits for voluntary 
greenhouse gas reductions and sequestration achieved by domestic 
entities over the voluntary period. Because we do not know when, if 
ever, the U.S. will impose emission reductions, we do not know the 
duration of the actual voluntary period. The bill does, however, 
establish a 10-year sunset on the voluntary crediting period.
  An entity earns one-for-one credit if it reduces its aggregate 
emissions from U.S. sources below the applicable baseline for the 
duration of the voluntary period. On the sequestration side, the entity 
could offset emissions, and potentially earn credits thereby, if it 
increases its net sequestration above the applicable sequestration 
baseline during the voluntary period.
  While I expect a great deal of debate on the establishment of 
baselines, and likely some significant changes, we wanted to initiate 
the debate by establishing a baseline that uses recent historical 
emissions data. In the bill as introduced, we suggest an averaged 
baseline made up by actual emission levels from 1996 through 1998.
  Mr. President, while I have an open mind on how we establish 
baselines or other performance measurements in this measure, I want to 
be clear that I will insist on a benchmark that is fair for business 
and that is environmentally sound. Clearly, we will be required to deal 
with continued business growth in this bill. That is, how to achieve 
clear environmental gains under this voluntary approach while still 
crediting the good deeds of growing and changing industries.
  There are other key issues, important details, that we will need to 
pin down in the coming weeks. To ensure the economic and environmental 
integrity of this program, it is incumbent upon us to require that the 
government credits are issued for verifiable and legitimate actions 
that contribute to climate stabilization. If a credit represents a ton 
of greenhouse gases in some future marketplace, or as an offset to some 
future regulatory obligation, than it must be a ton reduced or 
sequestered, not a phantom thereof.
  We will also be careful to establish a system that recognizes past 
activities, that is, climate mitigation projects that have occurred 
since the early 1990's, that clearly can be shown to be measurable 
emission reduction or sequestration actions.
  The recognition of both overseas and sequestration activities also 
present some unique challenges if we are to maintain a true 
environmental program that happens to be voluntary. But the development 
of carbon sinks and overseas emission reduction projects also provide 
tremendous opportunities to address potential climate change in a cost-
effective and whole way. If we are going to meet the challenges before 
us on global change, we will do so with all of the tools that science 
tells us are available.
  Mr. President, I could not be more pleased that we have been able to 
establish both business and environmental allies for this cause. 
Leading companies from the electric utility sector, a number of 
petroleum and natural gas companies, important automakers, agriculture, 
the cement makers, aluminum, chemicals, forestry, and other energy 
intensive industries recognize what is at stake here and are working 
with us to represent their interests. Many of them are also making 
great strides to benefit the global environment and they should be 
appropriately recognized.
  One important area that we will need to spend some time on is the 
product manufacturing sector. I recognize that appliance, air 
conditioning, and many product manufacturers believe that credits must 
be available for their voluntary improvements in energy efficiency and 
other actions which directly and indirectly reduce or mitigate 
greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation is perhaps not as clear as it 
needs to be on this important issue and I intend to work closely with 
these growing industries and other interested parties to address it.
  Our environmental allies recognize that there is an important 
opportunity here to achieve constructive, cost-effective, and voluntary 
strategies to address the threat of global climate change. Many of them 
recognize that our legislation is designed to offer a platform to 
diverse interests, including those with clashing objectives, for moving 
forward to support an initiative through which businesses can serve 
their own economic self-interest while bringing about environmental 
improvement.
  Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today includes very 
few revisions from the voluntary credits bill (S. 2617) that we 
introduced last October. This is not because we think we have the 
perfect document--not at all. We need to go through the process--hold 
hearings, continue to meet with industry and the environmental 
community, have discussions with Senate colleagues--before we make any 
significant revisions. But we will continue to do those things, and we 
will make improvements to this important legislation.
  While I have strong beliefs on the science of climate change and find 
some significant merits in the Kyoto Protocol--this legislation is 
completely agnostic on both. The fact is, this bill creates an ``escrow 
account'' for any U.S. entity that has made up its own mind to do 
things to earn emission credits--nothing more and nothing less with 
respect to ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol or any 
other international or domestic regulatory program.
  The issue of global climate change is serious business. While the 
international and domestic processes play out over the next period of 
years, let us move forward with sensible, cost-effective, voluntary 
incentives. What is the alternative?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the

[[Page 3743]]

Record. Finally, I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at this 
initiative, to talk with their constituents, and to consider working 
with us to improve and advance good, bipartisan, and voluntary 
legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows.

                                 S. 547

       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 ``Credit for 
     Voluntary Reductions Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Authority for early action agreements.
Sec. 5. Entitlement to greenhouse gas reduction credit for early 
              action.
Sec. 6. Baseline and base period.
Sec. 7. Sources and carbon reservoirs covered by early action 
              agreements.
Sec. 8. Measurement and verification.
Sec. 9. Authority to enter into agreements that achieve comparable 
              reductions.
Sec. 10. Trading and pooling.
Sec. 11. Relationship to future domestic greenhouse gas regulatory 
              statute.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to encourage voluntary actions 
     to mitigate potential environmental impacts of greenhouse gas 
     emissions by authorizing the President to enter into binding 
     agreements under which entities operating in the United 
     States will receive credit, usable in any future domestic 
     program that requires mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, 
     for voluntary mitigation actions taken before the end of the 
     credit period.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Carbon reservoir.--The term ``carbon reservoir'' means 
     quantifiable nonfossil storage of carbon in a natural or 
     managed ecosystem or other reservoir.
       (2) Compliance period.--The term ``compliance period'' 
     means any period during which a domestic greenhouse gas 
     regulatory statute is in effect.
       (3) Credit period.--The term ``credit period'' means--
       (A) the period of January 1, 1999, through the earlier of--
       (i) the day before the beginning of the compliance period; 
     or
       (ii) the end of the ninth calendar year that begins after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) if a different period is determined for a participant 
     under section 5(e) or 6(c)(4), the period so determined.
       (4) Domestic.--The term ``domestic'' means within the 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
       (5) Domestic greenhouse gas regulatory statute.--The term 
     ``domestic greenhouse gas regulatory statute'' means a 
     Federal statute, enacted after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, that imposes a quantitative limitation on domestic 
     greenhouse gas emissions, or taxes such emissions.
       (6) Early action agreement.--The term ``early action 
     agreement'' means an agreement with the United States entered 
     into under section 4(a).
       (7) Existing source.--The term ``existing source'' means a 
     source that emitted greenhouse gases during the participant's 
     base period determined under section 6.
       (8) Greenhouse gas.--The term ``greenhouse gas'' means--
       (A) carbon dioxide; and
       (B) to the extent provided by an early action agreement--
       (i) methane;
       (ii) nitrous oxide;
       (iii) hydrofluorocarbons;
       (iv) perfluorocarbons; and
       (v) sulfur hexafluoride.
       (9) Greenhouse gas reduction credit.--The term ``greenhouse 
     gas reduction credit'' means an authorization under a 
     domestic greenhouse gas regulatory statute to emit 1 metric 
     ton of greenhouse gas (expressed in terms of carbon dioxide 
     equivalent) that is provided because of greenhouse gas 
     emission reductions or carbon sequestration carried out 
     before the compliance period.
       (10) New source.--The term ``new source'' means--
       (A) a source other than an existing source; and
       (B) a facility that would be a source but for the 
     facility's use of renewable energy.
       (11) Own.--The term ``own'' means to have direct or 
     indirect ownership of an undivided interest in an asset.
       (12) Participant.--The term ``participant'' means a person 
     that enters into an early action agreement with the United 
     States under this Act.
       (13) Person.--The term ``person'' includes a governmental 
     entity.
       (14) Source.--The term ``source'' means a source of 
     greenhouse gas emissions.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY FOR EARLY ACTION AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President may enter into a legally 
     binding early action agreement with any person under which 
     the United States agrees to provide greenhouse gas reduction 
     credit usable beginning in the compliance period, if the 
     person takes an action described in section 5 that reduces 
     greenhouse gas emissions or sequesters carbon before the end 
     of the credit period.
       (2) Requirements.--An early action agreement entered into 
     under paragraph (1) shall meet either--
       (A) the requirements for early action agreements under 
     sections 5 through 8; or
       (B) in the case of a participant described in section 9, 
     the requirements of that section.
       (b) Delegation.--The President may delegate any authority 
     under this Act to any Federal department or agency.
       (c) Regulations.--The President may promulgate such 
     regulations (including guidelines) as are appropriate to 
     carry out this Act.

     SEC. 5. ENTITLEMENT TO GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION CREDIT FOR 
                   EARLY ACTION.

       (a) Internationally Creditable Actions.--A participant 
     shall receive greenhouse gas reduction credit under an early 
     action agreement if the participant takes an action that--
       (1) reduces greenhouse gas emissions or sequesters carbon 
     before the end of the credit period; and
       (2) under any applicable international agreement, will 
     result in an addition to the United States quantified 
     emission limitation for the compliance period.
       (b) United States Initiative for Joint Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an early action 
     agreement may provide that a participant shall be entitled to 
     receive greenhouse gas reduction credit for a greenhouse gas 
     emission reduction or carbon sequestration that--
       (A) is not creditable under subsection (a); and
       (B) is for a project--
       (i) accepted before December 31, 2000, under the United 
     States Initiative for Joint Implementation; and
       (ii) financing for which was provided or construction of 
     which was commenced before that date.
       (2) Limitation on period during which credit may be 
     earned.--No greenhouse gas reduction credit may be earned 
     under this subsection after the earlier of--
       (A) the earliest date on which credit may be earned for a 
     greenhouse gas emission reduction, carbon sequestration, or 
     comparable project under an applicable international 
     agreement; or
       (B) the end of the credit period.
       (c) Prospective Domestic Actions.--
       (1) Emission reductions.--A participant shall receive 
     greenhouse gas reduction credit under an early action 
     agreement if, during the credit period--
       (A) the participant's aggregate greenhouse gas emissions 
     from domestic sources that are covered by the early action 
     agreement; are less than
       (B) the sum of the participant's annual source baselines 
     during that period (as determined under section 6 and 
     adjusted under subsections (a)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of 
     section 7).
       (2) Sequestration.--For the purpose of receiving greenhouse 
     gas reduction credit under paragraph (1), the amount by which 
     aggregate net carbon sequestration for the credit period in a 
     participant's domestic carbon reservoirs covered by an early 
     action agreement exceeds the sum of the participant's annual 
     reservoir baselines for the credit period (as determined 
     under section 6 and adjusted under section 7(c)(1)(B)) shall 
     be treated as a greenhouse gas emission reduction.
       (d) Domestic Section 1605 Actions.--
       (1) Credit.--An early action agreement may provide that a 
     participant shall be entitled to receive 1 ton of greenhouse 
     gas reduction credit for each ton of greenhouse gas emission 
     reductions or carbon sequestration for the 1991 through 1998 
     period from domestic actions that are--
       (A) reported before January 1, 1999, under section 1605 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13385); or
       (B) carried out and reported before January 1, 1999, under 
     a Federal agency program to implement the Climate Change 
     Action Plan.
       (2) Verification.--The participant shall provide 
     information sufficient to verify to the satisfaction of the 
     President (in accordance with section 8 and the regulations 
     promulgated under section 4(c)) that actions reported under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) have been accurately reported;
       (B) are not double-counted; and
       (C) represent actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 
     or actual increases in net carbon sequestration.
       (e) Extension.--The parties to an early action agreement 
     may extend the credit period during which greenhouse gas 
     reduction credit may be earned under the early action 
     agreement, if Congress permits such an extension by law 
     enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 3744]]

       (f) Award of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Credit.--
       (1) Annual notification of cumulative balances.--After the 
     end of each calendar year, the President shall notify each 
     participant of the cumulative balance (if any) of greenhouse 
     gas reduction credit earned under an early action agreement 
     as of the end of the calendar year.
       (2) Award of final credit.--Effective at the end of the 
     credit period, a participant shall have a contractual 
     entitlement, to the extent provided in the participant's 
     early action agreement, to receive 1 ton of greenhouse gas 
     reduction credit for each 1 ton that is creditable under 
     subsections (a) through (d).

     SEC. 6. BASELINE AND BASE PERIOD.

       (a) Source Baseline.--A participant's annual source 
     baseline for each of the calendar years in the credit period 
     shall be equal to the participant's average annual greenhouse 
     gas emissions from domestic sources covered by the 
     participant's early action agreement during the participant's 
     base period, adjusted for the calendar year as provided in 
     subsections (a)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of section 7.
       (b) Reservoir Baseline.--A participant's annual reservoir 
     baseline for each of the calendar years in the credit period 
     shall be equal to the average level of carbon stocks in 
     carbon reservoirs covered by the participant's early action 
     agreement for the participant's base period, adjusted for the 
     calendar year as provided in section 7(c)(1).
       (c) Base Period.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), a participant's base period shall be 1996 through 1998.
       (2) Data unavailable or unrepresentative.--The regulations 
     promulgated under section 4(c) may specify a base period 
     other than 1996 through 1998 that will be applicable if 
     adequate data are not available to determine a 1996 through 
     1998 baseline or if such data are unrepresentative.
       (3) Elections.--The regulations promulgated under section 
     4(c) may permit a participant to elect a base period earlier 
     than 1996 (not to include any year earlier than 1990) to 
     reflect voluntary reductions made before January 1, 1996.
       (4) Adjustment of period during which credit may be 
     earned.--Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (d) of section 
     5, except as otherwise provided by the regulations 
     promulgated under section 4(c), if an election is made for a 
     base period earlier than 1996--
       (A) greenhouse gas reduction credit shall be available 
     under section 5(c) for the calendar year that begins after 
     the end of the base period and any calendar year thereafter 
     through the end of the credit period; and
       (B) greenhouse gas reduction credit shall be available 
     under section 5(d) only through the end of the base period.

     SEC. 7. SOURCES AND CARBON RESERVOIRS COVERED BY EARLY ACTION 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Sources.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Covered sources.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, a participant's early action agreement shall 
     cover all domestic greenhouse gas sources that the 
     participant owns as of the date on which the early action 
     agreement is entered into.
       (B) Exclusions.--The regulations promulgated under section 
     4(c) (or the terms of an early action agreement) may exclude 
     from coverage under an early action agreement--
       (i) small or diverse sources owned by the participant; and
       (ii) sources owned by more than 1 person.
       (2) New sources.--
       (A) In general.--The regulations promulgated under section 
     4(c) may provide that an early action agreement may provide 
     for an annual addition to a participant's source baseline to 
     account for new sources owned by the participant.
       (B) Amount of addition.--The amount of an addition under 
     subparagraph (A) shall reflect the emission performance of 
     the most efficient commercially available technology for 
     sources that produce the same or similar output as the new 
     source (determined as of the date on which the early action 
     agreement is entered into).
       (b) Opt-in Provisions.--
       (1) Opt-in for other owned sources.--Domestic sources owned 
     by a participant that are not required to be covered under 
     subsection (a) may be covered under an early action agreement 
     at the election of the participant.
       (2) Opt-in for carbon reservoirs.--
       (A) In general.--An early action agreement may provide that 
     domestic carbon reservoirs owned by a participant may be 
     covered under the early action agreement at the election of 
     the participant.
       (B) Coverage.--Except in the case of small or diverse 
     carbon reservoirs owned by the participant (as provided in 
     the regulations promulgated under section 4(c)), if a 
     participant elects to have domestic carbon reservoirs covered 
     under the early action agreement, all of the participant's 
     domestic carbon reservoirs shall be covered under the early 
     action agreement.
       (3) Opt-in for sources and carbon reservoirs not owned by 
     participant.--Any source or carbon reservoir not owned by the 
     participant, or any project that decreases greenhouse gas 
     emissions from or sequesters carbon in such a source or 
     carbon reservoir, may be covered by an early action 
     agreement--
       (A) in the case of a source or carbon reservoir that is 
     covered by another early action agreement, if each owner of 
     the source or carbon reservoir agrees to exclude the source 
     or reservoir from coverage by the owner's early action 
     agreement; and
       (B) in accordance with the regulations promulgated under 
     section 4(c).
       (c) Accounting Rules.--
       (1) Transfers.--If ownership of a source or carbon 
     reservoir covered by an early action agreement is transferred 
     to or from the participant--
       (A) in the case of a source, the source's emissions shall 
     be adjusted to reflect the transfer for the base period and 
     each year for which greenhouse gas reduction credit is 
     claimed; and
       (B) in the case of a carbon reservoir--
       (i) the carbon reservoir's carbon stocks shall be adjusted 
     to reflect the transfer for the participant's base period; 
     and
       (ii) the carbon reservoir's net carbon sequestration shall 
     be adjusted to reflect the transfer for each year for which 
     greenhouse gas reduction credit is claimed.
       (2) Displacement of emissions.--An early action agreement 
     shall contain effective and workable provisions that ensure 
     that only net emission reductions will be credited under 
     section 5 in circumstances in which emissions are displaced 
     from sources covered by an early action agreement to sources 
     not covered by an early action agreement.
       (3) Period of coverage.--Emissions from sources and net 
     carbon sequestration in carbon reservoirs shall be covered by 
     an early action agreement for the credit period, except as 
     provided under paragraph (1) or by the regulations 
     promulgated under section 4(c).
       (4) Partial years.--An early action agreement shall contain 
     appropriate provisions for any partial year of coverage of a 
     source or carbon reservoir.

     SEC. 8. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the regulations 
     promulgated under section 4(c), an early action agreement 
     shall--
       (1) provide that, for each calendar year during which the 
     early action agreement is in effect, the participant shall 
     report to the United States, as applicable--
       (A) the participant's annual source baseline and greenhouse 
     gas emissions for the calendar year; and
       (B) the participant's annual reservoir baseline and net 
     carbon sequestration for the calendar year;
       (2) establish procedures under which the participant will 
     measure, track, and report the information required by 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) establish requirements for maintenance of records by 
     the participant and provisions for inspection of the records 
     by representatives of the United States; and
       (4) permit qualified independent third party entities to 
     measure, track, and report the information required by 
     paragraph (1) on behalf of the participant.
       (b) Availability of Reports to the Public.--Reports 
     required to be made under subsection (a)(1) shall be 
     available to the public.
       (c) Confidentiality.--The regulations promulgated under 
     section 4(c) shall make appropriate provision for protection 
     of confidential commercial and financial information.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS THAT ACHIEVE 
                   COMPARABLE REDUCTIONS.

       In the case of a participant that manufactures or 
     constructs for sale to end-users equipment or facilities that 
     emit greenhouse gases, the President may enter into an early 
     action agreement that does not meet the requirements of 
     sections 5 through 7, if the President determines that--
       (1) an early action agreement that meets the requirements 
     of those sections is infeasible;
       (2) an alternative form of agreement would better carry out 
     this Act; and
       (3) an agreement under this section would achieve tonnage 
     reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that are comparable to 
     reductions that would be achieved under an agreement that 
     meets the requirements of those sections.

     SEC. 10. TRADING AND POOLING.

       (a) Trading.--A participant may--
       (1) purchase earned greenhouse gas reduction credit from 
     and sell the credit to any other participant; and
       (2) sell the credit to any person that is not a 
     participant.
       (b) Pooling.--The regulations promulgated under section 
     4(c) may permit pooling arrangements under which a group of 
     participants agrees to act as a single participant for the 
     purpose of entering into an early action agreement.

     SEC. 11. RELATIONSHIP TO FUTURE DOMESTIC GREENHOUSE GAS 
                   REGULATORY STATUTE.

       (a) In General.--An early action agreement shall not bind 
     the United States to adopt (or not to adopt) any particular 
     form of domestic greenhouse gas regulatory statute, except 
     that an early action agreement shall provide that--

[[Page 3745]]

       (1) greenhouse gas reduction credit earned by a participant 
     under an early action agreement shall be provided to the 
     participant in addition to any otherwise available 
     authorizations of the participant to emit greenhouse gases 
     during the compliance period under a domestic greenhouse gas 
     regulatory statute; and
       (2) if the allocation of authorizations under a domestic 
     greenhouse gas regulatory statute to emit greenhouse gases 
     during the compliance period is based on the level of a 
     participant's emissions during a historic period that is 
     later than the participant's base period under the 
     participant's early action agreement, any greenhouse gas 
     reduction credit to which the participant was entitled under 
     the early action agreement for domestic greenhouse gas 
     reductions during that historic period shall, for the purpose 
     of that allocation, be added back to the participant's 
     greenhouse gas emissions level for the historic period.
       (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act authorizes aggregate 
     greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources in an amount 
     that exceeds any greenhouse gas emission limitation 
     applicable to the United States under an international 
     agreement that has been ratified by the United States and has 
     entered into force.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Chafee, Lieberman, and others, in introducing the 
Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act. This measure is an important 
first step towards reducing the regulatory uncertainty surrounding any 
possible regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will 
provided us a valuable platform for a thorough discussion of this 
important issue and I encourage all my colleagues to join us in our 
efforts.
  In my state of Florida, we learned long ago that a healthy 
environment is fundamentally necessary for a healthy economy. This is 
evidenced by our congressional delegation's historic bipartisan 
consensus on such important national issues as the protection of the 
Florida Everglades and our efforts to stop oil and gas exploration off 
our beaches. The citizens of my state know full well how necessary it 
is we keep our environment clean and pristine.
  I'm proud to stand with my colleagues here today and take Florida's 
common sense, market-based attitude on the environment to the national 
level. The legislation we're sponsoring today would encourage and 
reward voluntary actions businesses take to reduce the emission of 
potentially harmful greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
  Under our bill, the President would be authorized to provide 
regulatory credit to companies who take early voluntary action to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This credit could be used to comply 
with future regulatory requirements and--in a market-based approach--
traded or sold to other companies as they work to meet their own 
environmental obligations.
  Participants in this innovative program would agree to annually 
measure, track and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions. Credit 
given would be one-for-one, based on actual reductions below an agreed-
upon baseline. Credits issued under the program would be subtracted 
from total emissions allowed under future regulatory emissions 
requirements.
  I believe this approach makes sense for many reasons. For one, there 
are many uncertainties surrounding the issue of greenhouse gas 
emissions and their relation to global warming. The complexities and 
uncertainties associated with understanding the interactions of our 
climate, our atmosphere and the impact of human behavior are enormous. 
I have my own concerns about the science behind this issue, and have 
tremendous concerns about the regulatory approach outlined in last 
year's Kyoto agreement. It is not my intent--in cosponsoring this 
bill--to validate Kyoto or the underlying science. Those issues are 
best left to the scientists and future congresses. Today, we are simply 
trying to clear the way for voluntary emissions-reductions projects 
that would otherwise be delayed for years. And we accomplish this in a 
way that is not costly to the taxpayers.
  It makes sense to provide appropriate encouragement to businesses who 
want to invest in improved efficiency--those who want to find ways to 
make cars, factories and power production cleaner. Under our bill, 
these companies are encouraged--not based on government fiat or 
handout--to get credit for their own initiative and problem solving 
skills.
  Another reason I believe this legislation would be beneficial is 
because today's businesses have no control over the regulations that 
could be required of them down the road. Although today's Congress has 
no desire to legislate requirements on greenhouse gases such as carbon 
dioxide, it is extremely difficult to predict where the scientific and 
economic data will carry future policymakers. In my view, it makes 
sense to encourage businesses to be proactive in protecting themselves 
from any future restrictions enacted by a more regulatory-minded 
Congress and administration.
  Mr. President, all of us agree that a healthy environment is 
important to our future. It's time to put partisanship aside and solve 
our environmental problem in a way that will allow business to be in 
control of their own future while doing their part to address global 
warming. By allowing companies to earn credit for actions they take 
now, businesses can be prepared for any regulations in the future.
  I look forward to beginning an earnest debate about this issue with 
my colleagues in the United States Senate. I believe we have an 
innovative approach to confronting as issue fraught with uncertainties. 
We should be looking to solve more of our problems by using our free 
market philosophy rather than by costly Washington mandates that my not 
work. The Credit for Voluntary Early Reductions Act is responsible 
effort to validate on the national level what we've always known in 
Florida: a healthy environment is key to a healthy economy.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join today with my 
colleagues Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, and Senators Mack, Warner, Moynihan, Reid, Wyden, 
Jeffords, Biden, Baucus, and Collins in introducing this important 
legislation. The point of this bi-partisan legislation is simple. It 
will provide credit, under any future greenhouse gas reduction systems 
we choose to adopt, to companies who act now to reduce their emissions. 
This is a voluntary, market-based approach that is a win-win situation 
for both American businesses and the environment.
  Many companies want to move forward now to reduce their greenhouse 
gas emissions. They don't want to wait until legislation requires them 
to make these reductions. For some companies reducing greenhouse gases 
makes good economic sense because adopting cost-effective solutions can 
actually save them money by improving the efficiency of their 
operations. Companies recognize that if they reduce their greenhouse 
gas emissions now they will be able to add years to any potential 
compliance schedule, allowing them to spread their investment costs 
over a longer span of time. Under this legislation, businesses will 
have the flexibility to innovate and develop expertise regarding the 
most cost-effective ways in which their particular company can become 
part of the solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
  This bill ensures that companies will be credited in future reduction 
proposals for actions taken now, thereby removing impediments 
preventing some voluntary efforts that would provide large 
environmental benefits. Focusing American ingenuity on early reductions 
will also help stimulate the search for and use of new, innovative 
strategies and technologies that are needed to enable companies both in 
this country and worldwide meet their reduction requirements in a cost-
effective manner. Development of such strategies and technologies will 
improve American competitiveness in the more than $300 billion global 
environmental marketplace.
  Early action by U.S. companies will begin creating very important 
environmental benefits now. By providing the certainty necessary to 
encourage companies to move forward with emission reductions, this 
legislation will lead to immediate reductions in greenhouse gas 
pollution. Once emitted, many

[[Page 3746]]

greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for a century 
or more. Early reductions can begin to slow the rate of buildup of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, helping to minimize the 
environmental risks of continued global warming. It just makes sense to 
encourage practical action now.
  The bill will help us deal with the serious threat posed by global 
climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases that result from human 
activity, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, are causing 
greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere above natural levels. 
More than 2,500 of the world's best scientific and technical experts 
have concluded that this increase threatens to change the balance of 
temperature and precipitation that we rely on for a host of economic 
and societal activities. The American Geophysical Union, a professional 
society comprised 35,000 geoscientists, recently stated that ``present 
understanding of the Earth climate system provides a compelling basis 
for legitimate public concern over future global- and regional-scale 
changes resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.''
  We recently learned from scientists that 1998 was the hottest year on 
record and that nine of the hottest ten years occurred in the past 
decade. Scientists believe that a rise in global temperature may in 
turn result in sea level rise and changes in weather patterns, food and 
fiber production, human health, and ecosystems. Beyond the science that 
we know, our common sense tells us that the risks associated with 
climate change are serious. Weather-related disasters already cost our 
economy billions of dollars every year.
  The climate agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 was an historic 
agreement that provided the foundation for an international solution to 
climate change. The protocol included important provisions, fought for 
by American negotiators, aimed at establishing real targets and 
timetables for achieving emissions reductions and providing flexibility 
and market mechanisms for reducing compliance costs as we work to limit 
our emissions of greenhouse gases. In Buenos Aires last year, the 
international community began developing the details of the protocol. I 
had the privilege of participating as a Senate observer at both the 
Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate change conventions. I was particularly 
encouraged that developing countries, including Argentina and 
Kazakstan, indicated their willingness in Buenos Aires to limit the 
growth of their greenhouse gas emissions. Nations of the world are all 
coming to recognize that climate change is an issue of grave 
international concern and that all members of the global community must 
participate in solving the problem.
  Unfortunately, the current atmosphere in Congress is such that some 
would block any steps related to climate change until the Kyoto 
protocol is ratified by the Senate. President Clinton has said he will 
not submit the Kyoto protocol for ratification until developing 
countries demonstrate meaningful participation. I am encouraged by the 
progress made in Buenos Aires and am proud that the United States, by 
signing the protocol, is committed to a leadership role in the global 
effort to protect our Earth's irreplaceable natural environment. But to 
defer debate and action on any proposal that might reduce greenhouse 
gases until after Senate consideration of the protocol is to deny the 
United States the ability to act in its own economic and environmental 
self-interest. The issue at stake is how to develop an insurance policy 
to protect us against the danger of climate change. Regardless of our 
individual views on the Kyoto protocol, we in Congress must focus our 
debate on the issue of climate change and work to forge agreement on 
how we can move forward. Unfortunately, we have done too little to 
attack the escalating emissions of greenhouse gases which threaten our 
health, our safety and our homes.
  I'm particularly pleased that the legislation grows out of principles 
developed in a dialogue between the Environmental Defense Fund and a 
number of major industries. I am encouraged that since the introduction 
of a similar version of this bill last year, we have received many 
constructive comments from those in the business and environmental 
communities. Many good suggestions are on the table now and we expect 
that many are yet to come; we welcome broad participation as we move 
forward on this legislation. I am committed to working through some of 
the important issues that have been raised. Indeed, I believe that it 
will be through the ongoing constructive participation of the widest 
spectrum of stakeholders that we will enact a law that catalyzes 
American action on climate change and delivers on the promise of 
crediting voluntary early actions.
  I hope that my colleagues and their constituents will take an honest 
and hard look at this initiative and consider working with us to 
improve and advance good legislation that begins to address the 
profound threat of global climate change. This legislation alone will 
not protect us from the consequences of climate change, but it is a 
constructive and necessary step in the right direction. I believe that 
it is crucial that we begin to address the important issue of climate 
change now because we have a moral obligation to leave our children and 
grandchildren a vibrant, healthy, and productive planet and thriving 
global economy.
  Mr. President, the debate about climate change is too often vested--
and I believe wrongly so--in false choices between scientific findings, 
common sense, business investments and environmental awareness. The 
approach of this bill again demonstrates that these are not mutually 
exclusive choices, but highly compatible goals.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in cosponsoring 
legislation introduced today by Senator Chafee and my other colleagues 
to establish a voluntary incentive-based program to reduce the 
emissions of greenhouse gases.
  This is an innovative concept that is in its formative stages. I am 
pleased to join in support of the concept of providing binding credits 
for industries who can verify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 
While there are significant issues that must be resolved in the final 
version of this legislation, I believe this voluntary approach has 
significant potential to encourage real reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions. I look forward, as a member of the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works, to actively participating in the further development 
of this legislation.
  Mr President, I also want to make clear that my support for this 
legislation does not indicate a change in my position on the Protocol 
on Global Climate Change--the Kyoto Protocol. I continue to strongly 
feel that the protocol is fatally flawed, and in its current form, 
should not be ratified by the Senate. My objections to this 
international agreement have been stated many times before. The 
agreement does not include appropriate involvement by key developing 
nations and it sets unachievable timetables for emissions reductions by 
developed nations. I am concerned that the end result would be 
unrealistic emission reduction requirements imposed on the United 
States without appropriate reductions assigned to other countries, and 
that in the end the United States economy would be severely impacted.
  The legislation I am supporting today does not endorse the Kyoto 
protocol or call for a regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. This legislation simply ensures that if the private sector 
takes important steps today to achieve reductions in their emissions, 
then these actions will be credited to them if there is a mandatory 
reduction program in the future.
  Now, Mr. President, how we devise a legislative package that provides 
these credits and verifies if emissions are reduced will require 
significant discussions through the Committee's hearing process. For my 
part, I am enthusiastic about a successful resolution of these many 
issues. I look forward to particularly working to ensure that 
appropriate credit is provided for substantial carbon storage. Any 
legislative effort

[[Page 3747]]

must recognize the important role of carbon sequestration in 
determining emission reduction strategies.
  This bill is about protecting United States companies that have or 
are interested in taking voluntary steps to lower their output of 
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These companies have 
requested the protection this bill provides and I intend to work 
closely with Senator Chafee and others to deliver it.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues today in 
introducing the Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act of 1999. I am 
pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The bill represents a far sighted effort to encourage early 
reductions of greenhouse gases. Under our program, companies in a wide 
range of industries may participate in a voluntary, market-based system 
of credit by making measurable reductions in greenhouse gases.
  We have learned from our experience with implementing the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments that the use of market-based incentives is the most 
cost-efficient, effective way to encourage corporate responsibility 
with respect to air emissions. Credit based systems have proven to 
effect emissions reductions which are larger than anticipated, at 
significantly lesser cost. The program laid out in our bill will remove 
market disincentives to taking action on greenhouse gas emissions and 
reward the initiative and innovation in the corporate sector.
  My good friend Senator Chafee has highlighted today what is perhaps 
the most important issue facing any climate change legislation. While 
there is growing scientific certainty that human actions may eventually 
cause harmful disturbances to our climate system, no one is sure what 
may be done in the future to mitigate the effects of any atmospheric 
disruptions. The legislative and diplomatic proposals are myriad. 
Uncertainty over how climate change will be addressed, if at all, is a 
formidable hurdle to corporate actions which may begin to mitigate the 
problem. By simply establishing a system of credits which may be used 
at a later time to document emissions reductions, our bill begins to 
address this issue of uncertainty and provide incentives for positive 
action on emissions reductions.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this innovative 
legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support our efforts.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, climate change poses potential real 
threats to Vermont, the Nation, and the World. While we cannot yet 
predict the exact timing, magnitude, or nature of these threats, we 
must not let our uncertainty lead to inaction.
  Preventing climate change is a daunting challenge. It will not be 
solved by a single bill or a single action. As we do not know the 
extent of the threat, we also do not know the extent of the solution. 
But we cannot let our lack of knowledge lead to lack of action. We must 
start today. Our first steps will be hesitant and imperfect, but they 
will be a beginning.
  Today I am joining Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Lieberman 
and a host of others in cosponsoring the Credit for Early Action Act in 
the United States Senate.
  Credit for Early Action gives incentives to American businesses to 
voluntarily reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Properly 
constructed, Credit for Early Action will increase energy efficiency, 
promote renewable energy, provide cleaner air, and help reduce the 
threat of possible global climatic disruptions. It will help industry 
plan for the future and save money on energy. It rewards companies for 
doing the right thing--conserving energy and promoting renewable 
energy. Without Credit for Early Action, industries which do the right 
thing run the risk of being penalized for having done so. We introduce 
this bill as a signal to industry: you will not be penalized for 
increasing energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy, you 
will be rewarded.
  In writing this bill, Senators Chafee, Mack, and Lieberman have done 
an excellent job with a difficult subject. I am cosponsoring the Credit 
for Early Action legislation as an endorsement for taking a first step 
in the right direction. I will be working with my colleagues throughout 
this Congress to strengthen this legislation to ensure that it strongly 
addresses the challenges that lie ahead. The bill must be changed to 
guarantee that our emissions will decrease to acceptable levels, and 
guarantee that credits will be given out equitably. These modifications 
can be summarized in a single sentence: credits awarded must be 
proportional to benefits gained. This goal can be achieved through two 
additions: a rate-based performance standard and a cap on total 
emissions credits.
  The rate-based performance standard is the most important item. A 
rate-based standard gives credits to those companies which are the most 
efficient in their class--not those that are the biggest and dirtiest 
to begin with. Companies are rewarded for producing the most product 
for the least amount of emissions. Small and growing companies would 
have the same opportunities to earn credits as large companies. This 
system would create a just and equitable means of awarding emissions 
credits to companies which voluntarily increase their energy efficiency 
and renewable energy use.
  The second item is an adjustable annual cap on total emissions 
credits. An adjustable annual cap allows Congress to weigh the number 
of credits given out against the actual reduction in total emissions. 
Since the ultimate goal is to reduce U.S. emissions, this provision 
would allow a means to ensure that we do not give all of our credits 
away without ensuring that our emissions levels are actually 
decreasing.
  With these two additions, Credit for Early Action will bring great 
rewards to our country, our economy, and our environment. It will save 
money, give industry the certainty to plan for the future, and promote 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, all while reducing our risk 
from climate change. This legislation sends the right message: 
companies will be rewarded for doing the right thing--increasing energy 
efficiency and renewable energy use.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues in 
introducing this important legislation. In particular, I want to thank 
Senator Chafee for his foresight and leadership on this most difficult 
issue. The science, politics, and economics of climate change all 
present major issues, and only someone as dedicated and tenacious as 
Senator Chafee could provide the leadership to get us to this point 
today. My good friend, Joe Lieberman, who has been another leader in 
the Senate on this tough issue, and Connie Mack, deserve our thanks for 
bringing us together around this first step in the long path toward 
managing the problem of climate change.
  The science of climate change is sufficiently advanced that we know 
we face a threat to our health and economy; but we are only beginning 
to come to grips with how we can manage that threat most effectively, 
and--this is the key--most efficiently. Climate change presents us with 
a classic problem in public policy--it is a long-term threat, not 
completely understood, to the widest possible public. And it is an 
issue whose resolution will require taking steps now with real costs to 
private individuals and businesses, costs that have a payoff that may 
only be fully apparent a generation or more in the future.
  Mr. President, we have learned a lot in the years that we have been 
making federal environmental policy here in the United States. We have 
much more to learn, but we have made real advances since the early 
days, when we did not always find the solutions that got us the most 
environmental quality for the buck. The bill we are introducing today 
reflects one important lesson: businesses can be a creative and 
responsible part of the solution to environmental problems. In fact, it 
is fair to say that we would not be here today if it were not for the 
leadership of groups like the International Climate Change Partnership 
and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, both of which have 
provided a forum for responsible businesses to reach consensus

[[Page 3748]]

on this issue. Significantly, it was a leading environmental group, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, that has provided indispensible technical 
expertise to turn good intentions into the bill we have here today.
  Drawing on our experience with tradable sulphur dioxide credits, this 
bill looks to the day when we have reached the kind of agreement--
whether based on our evolving commitments under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change or some other authority--that 
establishes an emissions credit trading regime for greenhouse gases. 
The best science--and political reality--tells us that current rates of 
greenhouse gas emissions are likely to result not only in measurable 
change in global temperatures, but also in a public demand to do 
something about it. That in turn will change the cost of doing business 
as usual for the industries that are major sources of those gases.
  But right now, if responsible firms--like DuPont and General Motors, 
if I can mention just two that operate in Delaware--want to do 
something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they not only get no 
credit in any future trading system--they actually lose out to firms 
that decide to delay reductions until such a system is in place. Those 
who procrastinate, under current law, not only avoid the cost today of 
cleaning up their emissions, but they would be in a position to receive 
credits for the kinds of cheaper, easier steps that more responsible 
companies have already taken. This is certainly not the way to 
encourage actions now that help air quality in the short term. And 
every action we take now, by reducing the long-term concentrations of 
greenhouse gases that would otherwise occur, lowers the overall 
economic impact of complying with any future climate change policy.
  One way out of this problem, Mr. President, is the bill we are 
introducing today--to assure firms who act responsibly today that their 
investments in a better future for all of us will be eligible for 
credit. At the same time, we will thereby raise the cost of delay.
  As with so much in the issue of climate change, this bill is a work 
in progress. Different kinds of firms, with different products, 
processes, and histories, face significantly different problems in 
complying with the demands of an early credit system. We must be sure 
that we provide the flexibility to encourage the widest variety of 
reductions. And while we want to encourage the greatest reductions as 
soon as possible, we must be sure that we have the best information--
and credible verification--on the effects of various kinds of early 
action. Without accurate verification and reporting, we cheapen the 
value of actions taken by the most responsible firms.
  This bill marks a real change in our approach to climate change: we 
have moved beyond the days of heated, irreconcilable arguments between 
those who see climate change as a real threat and those who don't. Now, 
cooler heads can discuss the best way to face the future that we are 
building for our children.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of this important legislation.
  This bill is a good beginning for a discussion in the Senate on how 
we can begin to develop constructive solutions to the problem of global 
climate change.
  Climate change is real. Over the last 130 years, since the beginning 
of the Industrial Revolution, global average surface temperatures have 
increased by one degree. Scientists project that this trend will 
continue and most of them believe the trend is due to increases in 
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. 
The temperature increase may not sound like much, but the consequences 
of even such a small global change could be enormous. This warming 
trend could have many effects, including even more unpredictable 
weather patterns, and major shifts in agricultural soils and 
productivity and wildlife habitat. To me, that drives home the need to 
deal with the problem.
  As I have mentioned to some of my colleagues, there is a vivid 
example of the warming in my home state of Montana. The Grinnell 
Glacier in Glacier National Park has retreated over 3,100 feet over the 
past century. If this continues, Park Service scientists predict this 
10,000 year old glacier will be entirely gone within 30 years. This 
glacier is a symbol and treasure to Montanans and its disappearance 
would be a hard thing to explain to our children and their children.
  This and other potential consequences of climate change are serious 
enough to warrant some action to reduce the threat it poses. The bill 
we are introducing today will hopefully be an incentive for people to 
take steps toward reducing the threat. This bill, the Credit for 
Voluntary Early Action Act, would allow those who voluntarily choose to 
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or to ``sequester'' them (meaning 
to keep them out of the atmosphere and in the soil or locked up in 
trees or plants) to get credit for those efforts. At some point in the 
near future, these credits are expected to have monetary value and 
could be sold in a domestic or global trading system.
  As my cosponsors acknowledge, this is not a perfect bill, but a 
complicated work in progress. As the Senate considers this matter, I am 
particularly interested in seeing how agriculture and forestry might 
benefit by participating in a credit system. These credits could be a 
financial reward for the good stewardship already taking place on 
America's farmland. Agriculture needs every opportunity to pursue 
markets, even if we're talking about unconventional products like 
carbon credits, to help with the bottom line.
  We already know that crop residue management and conservation tillage 
vastly improve carbon storage in soils and have side benefits, such as 
reducing erosion. Soils have an immense potential for locking up carbon 
so that it enters the atmosphere more gradually. Returning highly 
erodible cropland to perennial grasses could prove to be similarly 
effective. Many of these practices are already an important part of 
precision agriculture, so would be obvious low-cost ways for farmers 
and ranchers to earn credits. It is important that the rules of any 
trading system be written right, so they can work for agriculture. We 
can't let our international competitors, like Canada or Australia, be 
the only ones writing the rules in this developing market.
  Besides rewarding those who are willing to take early actions and 
move beyond normal business practices to address climate change, let's 
start to think outside the box about what else we can do. The U.S. has 
the most advanced environmental technology sector in the world. From 
new uses for agricultural waste and products to state-of-the-art 
pollution controls, we are leaders in improving efficiency and reducing 
waste. We need to jump start our public and private research and 
development structure so that it really focuses on new cost-effective 
products and systems that produce less greenhouse gas to meet a global 
demand.
  The Administration's Climate Change Technology Initiative is a 
reasonable first step. But, so far, Congress has approached this issue 
with a business as usual attitude. It's time to get serious and 
creative about developing more advanced technologies. We should be 
reviewing all the tools at our disposal, from research and development 
programs to taxes.
  We need to make this investment in our environmental future for the 
same reasons that we make investments in our economic future. People 
prepare for retirement because they want to reduce risks and reduce the 
cost of responding to future problems. For similar reasons, we need to 
make prudent investments like providing credit for early action, to 
reduce risks and reduce the cost of responding to future climate change 
problems. The more time we let go by, and the longer we let greenhouse 
gas concentrations rise unchecked, the more expensive the future's 
repair bills could be.
  There is still a long way to go with any climate change treaty. There 
must be real participation by the developing countries, like China, 
India, Brazil, etc. Carbon trading rules and the role of agriculture in 
sequestering carbon must

[[Page 3749]]

be more clearly defined. In the meantime, however, the bill we're 
introducing will allow us to see what works and to get a leg up on the 
rest of the world.
  Mr. President, this bill starts an important dialogue about our 
country's contribution to world greenhouse gas concentrations. Make no 
mistake, there is still a lot of work ahead for all of us to make this 
bill a reality. But this country cannot afford to play the part of the 
ostrich with its head in the sand. We must seriously engage this 
matter. We owe it to our children.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the efforts of my 
colleague Senator Chafee for the Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act 
he has introduced that will encourage the reduction of greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere. The concept of this bill is a creative step toward 
awarding those industries who take early actions to reduce their 
overall emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, 
which are thought to be causing changes in climate around the globe.
  The bill would set up a domestic program that gives companies certain 
credits for the voluntary actions they take for reducing the amount of 
greenhouse gases they emit into the air. These credits could then be 
used in meeting future reductions, or could be sold to other companies 
to help with their own reductions. Strong incentives would also be 
provided for those companies developing innovative technologies that 
will help reduce the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
  The Chafee bill clearly puts us at the starting line in the 106th 
Congress for addressing the continuous domestic buildup of greenhouse 
gases. I do feel the bill needs to take a further step in the race to 
make our planet more environmentally and economically friendly, 
however. We need to establish domestic credits for carbon sequestration 
that will help reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and 
thereby help to address the complex issue of climate change. I plan to 
continue to work with Senator Chafee to take that next step.
  Maine is one of the country's most heavily forested states, with much 
of its land devoted to forests, and so has much to offer towards the 
reduction of carbon in our atmosphere. The State's forestlands have 
been a large key to our quality of life and economic prosperity. These 
forests absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere, allowing the 
significant sequestration of carbon, serving as carbon ``sinks''.
  Because of continuous improvements made in forest management 
practices and through extensive tree replanting programs, forests all 
over the country continue to sequester significant amounts of carbon. 
Through active forest management and reforestation, through both 
natural and artificial regeneration, the private forests, both 
industrial and non-industrial, are helping to decrease carbon dioxide 
emissions that are occurring both from natural processes and human 
activities into the atmosphere.
  The addition of credits for greenhouse gas reductions for forestry-
related carbon sequestration activities should be a part of the 
voluntary credits system the bill proposes so as to allow the owners of 
the forests of today--and tomorrow--to voluntarily participate and 
receive credits for carbon sequestration. This should not be difficult 
to do since the U.S. Forest Service already follows a carbon stock 
methodology that is used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
document the nation's carbon dioxide emissions and inventories for 
carbon storage.
  I realize that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
has been tasked to prepare a special report that is expected out next 
year that may help define appropriate definitions and accounting rules 
for carbon sinks. In the meantime, I do not believe it will be helpful 
to leave the issue of carbon sequestration unacknowledged in any 
domestic program--and to cause losers along with winners in the 
process. We are all in a race against an uncertainty that no one can 
afford to lose.
  As I mentioned, I believe that the goals of the Chafee bill are 
admirable and will allow for a dialogue to begin, hopefully on the 
science as opposed to the politics, for what can be done domestically 
within the global climate change debate. I hope to be included as a 
part of that dialogue and urge that those who speak to carbon 
sequestration credits be heard through the public hearings process or 
by amending the bill in a way that will not only encourage sustainable 
forest management, but also stimulate incentives for maintaining 
healthy forests. The discussion on the importance of carbon 
sequestration within our terrestrial ecosystems--long a large component 
of the climate change debate--must continue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 548. A bill to establish the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort 
Miamis National Historical Site in the State of Ohio; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                           FALLEN TIMBERS ACT

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would designate the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis as 
National Historic Sites.
  Mr. President, the Battle of Fallen Timbers is an early and important 
chapter in the settlement of what was then known as the Northwest 
Territory. This important battle occurred between the U.S. army, led by 
General ``Mad'' Anthony Wayne, and a confederation of Native American 
tribes led by Tecumseh, in 1794. More than 1,000 Indians ambushed 
General Wayne's troops as they progressed along the Maumee River. 
Despite an unorganized defense, U.S. troops forced the tribes to 
retreat. The Treaty of Greenville was signed in 1795, and it granted 
the city of Detroit to the United States as well as secured the safe 
passage along the Ohio River for frontier settlers.
  The Battle of Fallen Timbers began Ohio's rich history in the 
formation of our country. And the citizens of Northwest Ohio are 
committed to preserving that heritage. The National Register of 
Historic Places already lists Fort Miamis. In 1959, the Battle of 
Fallen Timbers was included in the National Survey of Historic Sites 
and Buildings and was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 
1960. In 1998, the National Park Service completed a Special Resource 
Study examining the proposed designation and suitability of the site 
and determined that the Battle of Fallen Timbers Battlefield site meets 
the criteria for affiliated area status. So it remains only for 
Congress to officially recognize the national significance of these 
sites.
  My legislation would recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen 
Timbers Battlefield site. It would uphold the heritage of U.S. military 
history and Native American culture during the period of 1794 through 
1813. It would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
assistance in the preparation and implementation of the Plan to the 
State, its political subdivisions, or specified nonprofit organization.
  Mr. President, the people of Northwest Ohio are committed to 
preserving the heritage of their community, the State of Ohio, and the 
United States. Therefore, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort 
Miamis sites deserve national historical recognition for the history 
that they represent. For these reasons, I am proposing this important 
piece of legislation today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 548

       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 ``Fallen Timbers Battlefield 
     and Fort Miamis National Historical Site Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the 185-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield is the site of 
     the 1794 battle between General Anthony Wayne and a 
     confederation of Native American tribes led by Little Turtle 
     and Blue Jacket;
       (2) Fort Miamis was occupied by General Wayne's legion from 
     1796 to 1798;

[[Page 3750]]

       (3) in the spring of 1813, British troops, led by General 
     Henry Proctor, landed at Fort Miamis and attacked the fort 
     twice, without success;
       (4) Fort Miamis and the Fallen Timbers Battlefield are in 
     Lucas County, Ohio, in the city of Maumee;
       (5) the 9-acre Fallen Timbers Battlefield Monument is 
     listed as a national historic landmark;
       (6) Fort Miamis is listed in the National Register of 
     Historic Places as a historic site;
       (7) in 1959, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield was included in 
     the National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings as 1 of 
     22 sites representing the ``Advance of the Frontier, 1763-
     1830''; and
       (8) in 1960, the Fallen Timbers Battlefield was designated 
     as a national historic landmark.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize and preserve the 185-acre Fallen Timbers 
     Battlefield site;
       (2) to formalize the linkage of the Fallen Timbers 
     Battlefield and Monument to Fort Miamis;
       (3) to preserve and interpret United States military 
     history and Native American culture during the period from 
     1794 through 1813;
       (4) to provide assistance to the State of Ohio, political 
     subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit organizations in the 
     State to implement the stewardship plan and develop programs 
     that will preserve and interpret the historical, cultural, 
     natural, recreational, and scenic resources of the historical 
     site; and
       (5) to authorize the Secretary to provide technical 
     assistance to the State of Ohio, political subdivisions of 
     the State, and nonprofit organizations in the State 
     (including the Ohio Historical Society, the city of Maumee, 
     the Maumee Valley Heritage Corridor, the Fallen Timbers 
     Battlefield Preservation Commission, Heidelberg College, the 
     city of Toledo, and the Metropark District of the Toledo 
     Area) to implement the stewardship plan.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historical site.--The term ``historical site'' means 
     the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Monument and Fort Miamis 
     National Historical Site established by section 4.
       (2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the Ohio Historical Society, the city of Maumee, the 
     Maumee Valley Heritage Corridor, the Fallen Timbers 
     Battlefield Preservation Commission, Heidelberg College, the 
     city of Toledo, the Metropark District of the Toledo Area, 
     and any other entity designated by the Governor of Ohio.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Stewardship plan.--The term ``stewardship plan'' means 
     the management plan developed by the management entity.
       (5) Technical assistance.--The term ``technical 
     assistance'' means any guidance, advice, or other aid, other 
     than financial assistance, provided by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL 
                   HISTORICAL SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State of 
     Ohio the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National 
     Historical Site.
       (b) Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--The historical site shall be composed of--
       (A) the Fallen Timbers 185-acre battlefield site described 
     in paragraph (3);
       (B) the 9-acre battlefield monument; and
       (C) the Fort Miamis site.
       (2) Map.--The Secretary shall prepare a map of the 
     historical site, which shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (3) Fallen timbers site.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the Fallen Timbers site generally comprises a 185-acre parcel 
     northeast of U.S. 24, west of U.S. 23/I-475, south of the 
     Norfolk and Western Railroad line, and east of Jerome Road.
       (4) Consent of local property owners.--No privately owned 
     property or property owned by a municipality shall be 
     included within the boundaries of the historical site unless 
     the owner of the property consents to the inclusion.

     SEC. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--The historical site shall remain a 
     national historical site unless--
       (1) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the use, condition, or development of the historical 
     site is incompatible with the purposes of this Act; or
       (B) the management entity of the historical site has not 
     made reasonable and appropriate progress in preparing or 
     implementing the stewardship plan for the historical site; 
     and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary submits to Congress notification that the 
     historical site designation should be withdrawn.
       (b) Public Hearing.--Before the Secretary makes a 
     determination under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall 
     hold a public hearing in the historical site.
       (c) Time of Withdrawal of Designation.--
       (1) Definition of legislative day.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``legislative day'' means any calendar day on which both 
     Houses of Congress are in session.
       (2) Time period.--The withdrawal of the historical site 
     designation shall become final 90 legislative days after the 
     Secretary submits to Congress notification under subsection 
     (a)(2).

     SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Duties and Authorities of the Secretary.--
       (1) Technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to prepare and implement the stewardship plan to--
       (i) the State of Ohio;
       (ii) a political subdivision of the State;
       (iii) a nonprofit organization in the State; or
       (iv) any other person on a request by the management 
     entity.
       (B) Prohibition of certain requirements.--The Secretary may 
     not, as a condition of the award of technical assistance 
     under this section, require any recipient of the technical 
     assistance to establish or modify land use restrictions.
       (C) Determinations regarding assistance.--
       (i) Decision by secretary.--The Secretary shall decide if 
     technical assistance should be awarded and the amount, if 
     any, of the assistance.
       (ii) Standard.--A decision under clause (i) shall be based 
     on the degree to which the historical site effectively 
     fulfills the objectives contained in the stewardship plan and 
     achieves the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Development of stewardship plan.--The Secretary may 
     assist in development of the stewardship plan.
       (3) Provision of information.--In cooperation with the 
     heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary shall provide 
     the public with information regarding the location and 
     character of the historical site.
       (b) Duties of Other Federal Agencies.--The head of any 
     Federal agency conducting an activity directly affecting the 
     historical site shall--
       (1) consider the potential effect of the activity on the 
     stewardship plan; and
       (2) consult with the management entity of the historical 
     site with respect to the activity to minimize the adverse 
     effects of the activity on the historical site.

     SEC. 7. NO EFFECT ON LAND USE REGULATION AND PRIVATE 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) No Effect on Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this 
     Act modifies, enlarges, or diminishes the authority of any 
     Federal, State, or local government to regulate the use of 
     land by law (including regulations).
       (b) No Zoning or Land Use Powers.--Nothing in this Act 
     grants any power of zoning or land use control to the 
     management entity of the historical site.
       (c) No Effect On Local Authority or Private Property.--
     Nothing in this Act affects or authorizes the management 
     entity to interfere with--
       (1) the rights of any person with respect to private 
     property; or
       (2) any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of the 
     State of Ohio or a political subdivision of the State.

     SEC. 8. FISHING, TRAPPING, AND HUNTING.

       (a) No Diminishment of State Authority.--The establishment 
     of the historical site shall not diminish the authority of 
     the State to manage fish and wildlife, including the 
     regulation of fishing, hunting, and trapping in the 
     historical site.
       (b) No Conditioning of Approval and Assistance.--The 
     Secretary and the head of any other Federal agency may not 
     make a limitation on fishing, hunting, or trapping--
       (1) a condition of the determination of eligibility for 
     assistance under this Act; or
       (2) a condition for the receipt, in connection with the 
     historical site, of any other form of assistance from the 
     Secretary or the agency, respectively.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 551. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage school construction and rehabilitation through the creation 
of a new class of bond, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


          THE EXPAND AND REBUILD AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
provide a tax credit for the bond holders of public school construction 
bonds, totaling $1.4 billion each year for two years. To qualify to use 
the bonds, the bill requires schools to be subject to state academic 
achievement standards and have an average elementary student-teacher 
ratio of 28 to one.
  Bonds could be used if school districts meet one of three criteria:
  (1) The school is over 30 years old or the bonds will be used to 
install advanced or improved, telecommunications equipment;
  (2) Student growth rate will be at least 10 percent over the next 5 
years; or

[[Page 3751]]

  (3) The construction or rehabilitation is needed to meet natural 
disaster requirements.
  The bill is the companion of H. R. 415, introduced by my California 
colleague, Representative Loretta Sanchez.
  The bonding authority can leverage additional funds and it offers a 
new financing tool for our schools that can complement existing funding 
sources in an effort to address the need to repair and upgrade existing 
schools. It offers assistance especially for small and low-income 
school districts because low-income communities with the most serious 
needs may have to pay the highest interest rates to issue bonds, if 
they can be issued at all. Because the bonds provide a tax credit to 
the bond holder, the bond is supported by the federal treasury, not the 
local school district.
  The nation's schools are crumbling. We have many old schools. One 
third of the nation's 110,000 schools were built before World War II 
and only about one of 10 schools was built since 1980. More than one-
third of the nation's existing schools are currently over 50 or more 
years old and need to be repaired or replaced. The General Accounting 
Office has said that nationally we need over $112 billion for 
construction and repairs at 80,000 schools.
  My state needs $26 billion from 1998 to 2008 to modernize and repair 
existing schools and $8 billion to build schools to meet enrollment 
growth. In November 1998, California voters approved state bonds 
providing $6.5 billion for school construction.
  In addition to deteriorating schools, some schools are bursting at 
the seams because of the huge numbers of students and we can expect 
more pressure as enrollments rise. The ``Baby Boom Echo'' report by the 
U.S. Department of Education in September 1998, found that between 1988 
and 2008, public high school enrollment will jump by 26 percent and 
elementary enrollment will go up by 17 percent. In 17 states, there 
will be a 15 percent increase in the number of public high school 
graduates. This school year, school enrollment is at a record level, 
52.7 million students.
  My state faces severe challenges:
  1. High Enrollment: California today has a K-12 public school 
enrollment at 5.6 million students which represents more students than 
36 states have in total population, all ages. We have a lot of 
students.
  Between 1998 and 2008, when the national enrollment will grow by 4 
percent, in California, it will escalate by 15 percent, the largest 
increase in the nation. California's high school enrollment is 
projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Each year between 
160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. 
Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools 
in the state during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 
million to 6.8 million.
  California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per 
class between now and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student 
population. By 2007, California will need 22,000 new classrooms. 
California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years 
just to keep pace with the projected growth.
  2. Crowding: Our students are crammed into every available space and 
in temporary buildings. Today, 20 percent of our students are in 
portable classrooms. There are 63,000 relocatable classrooms in use in 
1998.
  3. Old Schools: Sixty percent of our schools are over 40 years old. 
87 percent of the public schools need to upgrade and repair buildings, 
according to the General Accounting Office. Ron Ottinger, president of 
the San Diego Board of Education has said: ``Roofs are leaking, pipes 
are bursting and many classrooms cannot accommodate today's computer 
technology.''
  4. High Costs: The cost of building a high school in California is 
almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in 
California, it is $27 million. In California, our costs are higher than 
other states in part because our schools must be built to withstand 
earthquakes, floods, El Nino and a myriad of other natural disasters. 
California's state earthquake building standards add 3 to 4 percent to 
construction costs. Here's what it costs to build schools in 
California: an elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million; a middle school 
(7-8), $12.0 million; a high school (9-12), $27.0 million.
  5. Class Size Reduction: Our state, commendably, is reducing class 
sizes in grades K through 3, but this means we need more classrooms.
  Here are some examples in California of our construction needs:
  Los Angeles Unified School District got 16,000 additional students 
this year and expects an 11 percent enrollment growth by 2006. Because 
of overcrowding, they are bussing 13,000 students away from their home 
neighborhoods. For example, Cahuenga Elementary School has 1,500 
students on 40 buses, with some children traveling on the bus two hours 
every day. Not only is this essentially wasted time for students and an 
expense of school districts, it means that it is very difficult for 
parents to get to their children's schools for school events and 
teacher conferences.
  Half of LA Unified's students attend school on a multi-track, year-
round schedule because of overcrowding. This means their schools cannot 
offer remedial summer school programs for students that need extra 
help.
  Olive View School in Corning Elementary School District, with over 70 
percent of students in portable classrooms, needs to replace these 
aging and inadequate facilities.
  Fresno Unified School District has a backlog of older schools needing 
repairs. For example, Del Mar Elementary School has a defective roof. 
Chuck McAlexander, Administrator, wrote me: ``The leakage at Del Mar is 
so bad that the plaster ceiling of the corridor was falling and has 
been temporarily shored with plywood.''
  San Bernardino City Unified School District, which is growing at a 
rate of over 1,000 students per year, has 25 schools over 30 years old, 
buildings needing improved classroom lighting, carpeting, electrical 
systems, and plumbing. Several schools need air condition so they can 
operate year-round to accommodate burgeoning enrollment.
  Berkeley High School was built in 1901 and damaged by the 1989 Loma 
Prieta earthquake. They are still trying to raise funds to replace the 
building.
  Polytechnic High School in Long Beach is over 100 years old and 
houses 4,200 students. The last repairs were done in 1933. Long Beach 
officials wrote:

       ``The heating system is in desperate need of replacement 
     with continual breakdowns and the constant need for 
     maintenance. The roofs have exceeded their average life 
     expectancy by 20 years. Flooring and equipment have been 
     damaged several times during the rainy season. There have 
     been instances where classrooms had to be evacuated due to 
     health and safety issues. The electrical systems that were 
     designed for 2,000 students can no longer support the needs 
     of over 4,000 students, especially after taking into account 
     the need for increased technology. The antiquated plumbing 
     system is in desperate need of repair. . . . The entire 
     support infrastructure, water, sewer and drainage facilities 
     are in dire need of replacement as the age of these systems 
     have well exceeded their lifespan.''

  The elementary school in the Borrego Unified School District has a 
deteriorating water well, with silt and inadequate pressure. The 
middle-high school has an intercom and fire alarm system inoperable 
because of a collapsed underground cable.
  In San Diego, 49 schools need roof repairs or replacement. Ninety-one 
elementary schools need new fire alarms and security systems. Mead 
Elementary School, which is 45 years old, has clogged and rusted 
plumbing beyond repair, with water pressure so weak that it amounts to 
a drip at times.
  Ethel Phillips Elementary School, age 48, in the Sacramento City 
Unified School District, has dry rot in the classrooms because of water 
damaged and needs foundation repairs and new painting, to preserve the 
building.
  Loleta Union School District, which is in an area of seismic 
activity, needs an overhaul of the wiring to support modern technology.
  San Pasqual Union School District's only water well is contaminated 
and the 30-year-old roof needs replacement.

[[Page 3752]]

  At the San Miguel Elementary School in San Francisco, the windows are 
rotting and the roof is leaking so badly that they must set out buckets 
every time it rains.
  And on and on.
  School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students. 
Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor 
condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of 
students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20 
percent in test scores when students move to a new facility.
  The point is that improving facilities improves teaching and 
learning. I hope that this bill will offer some help and most 
importantly provide new learning opportunities for our students. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows.

         Summary of Feinstein-Sanchez School Construction Bill


                              Tax Credits

       Provides $1.4 billion in tax credits in FY 2000 and $1.4 
     billion in tax credits in FY 2001 to any bondholder for 
     public elementary and secondary school construction and 
     rehabilitation bonds. Similar to the Qualified Zone Academy 
     Bonds created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, bondholders 
     would receive a tax credit, rather than interest.


                            Eligible Schools

       To qualify to use the bonds, students in the schools must 
     be subject to state academic achievement standards and tests;
       schools must have a program to alleviate overcrowding; the 
     school district must have an average elementary student-
     teacher ratio of 28 to one at the time of issuance of the 
     bonds; and meet one of the following three criteria:
       1. The school to be repaired is over 30 years old or the 
     bonds are used to provide advanced or improved 
     telecommunications facilities.
       2. The student growth rate in the school district will be 
     at least 10 percent over the next 5 years.
       3. School construction or rehabilitation is needed to meet 
     natural disaster requirements.

                          ____________________