[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4785-4810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 638. A bill to provide for the establishment of a School Security 
Technology Center and to authorize grants for local school security 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                        safe school security act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 639. A bill to prevent truancy and reduce juvenile crime; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


          truancy prevention and juvenile crime reduction act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 640. A bill to establish a pilot program to promote the 
replication of recent successful juvenile crime reduction strategies; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   safer communities partnership act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three measures 
that are linked together by a common theme--the desire to create a 
safer environment for young people to grow up in.
  Two of these bills are designed to help communities better combat 
juvenile crime and the related problem of truancy. The third proposal 
will help better protect students from violence in the school building 
through the use of technology.
  It's clear that in order to create a safer environment for young 
people, we must not only reduce the number of children who commit 
crimes, but also the number of children who are victims of crime.
  Before I outline these specific bills, I'd like to put them in a 
larger context. Mr. President, I'd like to spend just a minute 
discussing the broader question of what children need--in addition to 
safe surroundings--in order to grow into healthy, productive adults.
  Let me start by describing my own childhood. I grew up in a small 
mining town in southwestern New Mexico called Silver City. Both my 
parents were teachers, so naturally a top concern was that I got a 
solid education. Fortunately, the local schools were good, and when I 
graduated with my classmates from what is now Silver High, we felt we 
could compete with just about any other student in the country.
  Silver City was also relatively safe. People tended to know their 
neighbors and while no town is completely crime-free, we felt secure in 
our homes, around town, and in school.
  Finally, Silver City was by no means a wealthy town. But I'm sure I'm 
not the only one who grew up optimistic that a person could work hard, 
achieve a decent standard of living, and support their family without 
fear that one turn of bad luck would put them out on the streets.
  In short, Mr. President, Silver City was a pretty good place to grow 
up. In fact, we used to feel sorry for people in neighboring states 
where the quality of life was not so good.
  Even today, New Mexico is blessed with rich cultural diversity, 
tremendous natural beauty, strong families and a sense of tradition. 
All of these things make New Mexico a wonderful place to live. Each 
time I go home I'm astonished at the number of new people who are 
moving there, no doubt for some of these very reasons.
  And yet, Mr. President, some things seem to have changed since I was 
a kid in New Mexico. I seem to hear more and more frequently from 
parents who tell me how hard it is to raise a child in a state where 
crime and unemployment rates are high, yet family income and school 
graduation rates are low. Where alcohol and drug abuse are widespread, 
but health insurance and treatment options are scarce.
  Those of us from New Mexico know that a Washington-based study 
ranking our state as the worst place to raise children can not be taken 
at face-value. And yet, there is a troubling reality we must face. In 
many ways, our state is failing to provide what is needed to ensure all 
of our young people have the necessary foundation to grow into healthy, 
productive adults. In several key respects, New Mexico has fallen 
behind the other states we used to feel sorry for.
  So, Mr. President, as we stand on the brink of a new century, I rise 
today to urge that we recommit ourselves--as elected officials, as 
community leaders, as parents, and as citizens-- to better meeting the 
needs of people growing up in our state and to setting higher goals for 
New Mexico's future.
  I began by saying that a child needs to grow up safe from harm. That 
means safe from family violence, safe from gang warfare, and safe in 
school. But a child has other needs that must be met as well. I'd like 
to mention three other areas that I believe are cornerstones to strong 
foundation for any child.
  The first of these is economic security. If a child is living in 
poverty, or on the edge of poverty, it is very difficult for anything 
else to fall into place.
  A child should grow up in a family whose economic circumstances are 
stable. This stability comes first and foremost from parents with 
decent job opportunities. It also comes from a family's ability to 
successfully juggle numerous economic demands--and to adapt to change, 
the only certainty in today's global economy. Our efforts in this area 
should center on creating more high-wage jobs and on giving families 
the tools to manage the unpredictable forces that can throw them into 
financial turmoil.
  The second cornerstone is education. In America, a quality public 
education has long been the great leveler between the haves and the 
have-nots. Children need access to a quality education that will give 
them the skills to achieve a good standard of living.
  A quality education system is one characterized by accountability and 
flexibility. Accountability means that clear goals are set for things 
like student achievement and teacher quality,

[[Page 4786]]

information is readily available on student progress toward these 
goals, and schools are held accountable for this progress. Flexibility 
means that schools have the resources and the ability to adapt to meet 
the needs of students--particularly students at risk of dropping out.
  Third, children must have access to affordable, quality health care. 
A child who is sick cannot go to school--cannot be expected to learn. 
And yet according to the Children's Defense Fund, no state has a 
greater percentage of uninsured children than New Mexico.
  We have to ensure that this health care is not only promised, but 
delivered--and that it is just as available to rural areas as it is to 
urban ones.
  In the coming weeks, I intend to introduce legislation and pursue 
strategies in each of these remaining three areas--that I hope will 
begin to help parents provide a strong foundation for their children. 
All of us who grew up in New Mexico have fond memories of those days, 
and we want to assure that feeling for future generations of New 
Mexicans so that they can grow up, raise their families, and build a 
future in our state.
  Mr. President, I'd now like to describe the three bills I am 
introducing today.
  While adult crime rates are declining in many areas, the juvenile 
crime rate continues to rise--especially drug-related crime. But there 
is some hope, and there are good solutions out there. Not too long ago, 
I heard about the success the City of Boston had in getting control of 
their serious juvenile crime problem. In 1992, Boston had 152 
homicides--a horrendous statistic. Realizing the community had to come 
together to work on a common solution, the City of Boston developed and 
implemented a collaborative strategy to address their crime problem. 
Boston's strategy was very successful, and between 1995 and 1997, their 
homicide rate dropped significantly. Most notably, they went two years 
without a single juvenile homicide.
  Boston got law enforcement, community organizations, health 
providers, prosecutors, and even religious leaders working together to 
tackle different aspects of juvenile crime.
  The Boston strategy worked because it got people from different 
organizations working together on a specific set of goals--like taking 
guns away from felons, using probation officers to help identify and 
apprehend probation violators, and providing alternatives to children 
to keep them from getting into trouble in the first place.
  Boston recognized that juvenile crime affects the entire community, 
and a community that pulls together to address it will have a better 
chance of success.
  The legislation I am introducing today, called the Safer Communities 
Partnership Act, is patterned after a bill authored by Senator Kennedy. 
It provides funding for communities that want to implement this 
``Boston'' strategy. And because there is no one-size-fits-all approach 
that works for every community, this bill provides the flexibility to 
integrate this strategy into the crime-fighting efforts already 
occurring at the local level.
  The next two proposals have two goals: (1) to keep kids in school, 
and (2) to keep kids in school safe.
  Although truancy is often the first sign of trouble in the life of a 
young person, this problem has long been overlooked. Truancy not only 
indicates a young person's disinterest in school, it often indicates 
that a young person is headed for a life of crime, drugs and other 
serious problems.
  It is clear that truancy and crime go hand-in-hand--44 percent of 
violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours and 57 percent 
of violent crimes committed by juveniles occur on school days. Most of 
these crimes take place at a time when we expect young people to be in 
school.
  In most cases, parents are not aware that their children are truant. 
We all have to do a better job of notifying parents when kids skip 
school. In fact, most studies indicate that when parents, educators, 
law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent 
truancy at an early stage, school attendance increases and daytime 
crime decreases.
  The Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act I am 
introducing today authorizes $25 million per year for local 
partnerships to address truancy. The funds can be used for a variety of 
purposes. They can be used to create penalties for truants and parents 
when truancy becomes a chronic problem. They can be used by schools to 
acquire the technology needed to automatically notify parents when 
their children are absent without an excuse.
  Not only do we need to keep our young people in school, we need to 
keep our students in school safe! Most of us understand the importance 
of protecting our assets, yet we have neglected to protect our biggest 
investment of all: our school children. The third and final bill I am 
introducing today is intended to do just that.
  We all remember the horrible tragedies that struck Jonesboro, 
Arkansas, Paducah, Kentucky, and other communities within the last 
year. At a time when violent crime in the nation is decreasing, one in 
ten public schools reported at least one serious violent crime during 
the 1996-97 school year. The school yard fist fight is no longer a 
child's worst fear: 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry 
about being shot or stabbed. A violent environment is not a good 
learning environment.
  Educators and law enforcement know that one way to prevent crime in 
our schools is through the use of technology. The Safe School Security 
Act would establish the School Security Technology Center at Sandia 
National Laboratories and provide grant money for local school 
districts to access the technology. Because Sandia is one of our 
nation's premier labs when it comes to providing physical security for 
our nation's most important assets, it is fitting that they would be 
chosen to provide security to school districts throughout our nation.
  The latest technology was recently tested in a pilot project 
involving Sandia Labs and Belen High School in Belen, New Mexico and 
the results were astounding. After two years, Belen High School 
reported a 75 percent reduction in school violence, a 30 percent 
reduction in truancy, an 80 percent reduction in vehicle break-ins and 
a 75 percent reduction in vandalism. Moreover, insurance claims due to 
theft or vandalism at Belen High School dropped from $50,000 to $5,000 
after the pilot project went into effect. Clearly, the cost of making 
our schools safer and more secure is a good investment for our nation.
  Mr. President, these three bills represent only a small fraction of 
what should be done to ensure that children grow up safe. There is much 
more I hope we can do this year. For instance, no discussion of the 
safety of children would be complete without acknowledging the problem 
of drug and alcohol abuse, which is not only a problem for many young 
people, but is often a source of family violence committed by addicted 
parents.
  In recent weeks, we have seen the community of Espanola in northern 
New Mexico begin to come to terms with a very serious heroin problem. 
In other parts of the state, federal, state and local officials are 
combating an increase in production and trafficking of 
methamphetamines, or meth. And of course, the problem of alcohol abuse 
continues to plague communities big and small, urban and rural.
  All of these problems must be approached on two fronts--from the law 
enforcement side, and from the treatment side. Last year we obtained an 
increase of over one million dollars for New Mexico-based efforts to 
stop the drug trade along the Mexican border, and I recently joined in 
introducing a measure that will help local law enforcement crack down 
on the production and distribution of methamphetamines.
  On the treatment side, Congress this year will update the budget for 
all federally-funded drug and alcohol treatment programs through the 
reauthorization of SAMHSA. I have already secured a commitment from the 
head of this agency to travel to northern New Mexico, and I plan to 
play a leading

[[Page 4787]]

role in ensuring adequate funding for treatment facilities in 
underserved areas like our state.
  Mr. President, in closing I'd like to say that I am not the only 
person interested in working to make New Mexico a better place to grow 
up. There are valiant efforts underway all across the state, and I 
commend those who are striving to make a difference. But this is not 
something that can occur overnight. This is a long term effort that 
requires cooperation between all levels of government, community 
leaders, average citizens, and of course, parents.
  As we prepare to close the book on the 20th century, I'd like to 
suggest a new horizon for our state that will give us the time to make 
the progress we all want to make. We are a little more than 12 years 
away from New Mexico's 100th anniversary as a state of these United 
States. This anniversary will occur on January 6, 2012. I say we set 
our sights beyond the turn of the century and focus on that year--2012. 
Then we can set high goals for New Mexico and the future of our 
children, knowing we have 12 more years to do all we can to meet them. 
New Mexico can still be a great place to grow up, if we all work 
together toward that goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 638

       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 ``Safe School Security Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

       (a) School Security Technology Center.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Education, and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
     agreement for the establishment at the Sandia National 
     Laboratories, in partnership with the National Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Southeast, of 
     a center to be known as the ``School Security Technology 
     Center''. The School Security Technology Center shall be 
     administered by the Attorney General.
       (2) Functions.--The School Security Technology Center shall 
     be a resource to local educational agencies for school 
     security assessments, security technology development, 
     technology availability and implementation, and technical 
     assistance relating to improving school security.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $2,850,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $2,950,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (3) $3,050,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7111 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 4119. LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants on a 
     competitive basis to local educational agencies to enable the 
     agencies to acquire security technology for, or carry out 
     activities related to improving security at, the middle and 
     secondary schools served by the agencies, including obtaining 
     school security assessments, and technical assistance, for 
     the development of a comprehensive school security plan from 
     the School Security Technology Center.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including 
     information relating to the security needs of the agency.
       ``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to local educational agencies 
     that demonstrate the highest security needs, as reported by 
     the agency in the application submitted under paragraph (2).
       ``(b) Applicability.--The provisions of this part (other 
     than this section) shall not apply to this section.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.''.

     SEC. 4. SAFE AND SECURE SCHOOL ADVISORY REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Education and the Secretary of Energy, or their designees, 
     shall--
       (1) develop a proposal to further improve school security; 
     and
       (2) submit that proposal to Congress.
                                  ____


                                 S. 639

       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 ``Truancy Prevention and 
     Juvenile Crime Reduction Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Truancy is often the first sign of trouble--the first 
     indicator that a young person is giving up and losing his or 
     her way.
       (2) Many students who become truant eventually drop out of 
     school, and high school drop outs are two and a half times 
     more likely to be on welfare than high school graduates, 
     twice as likely to be unemployed, or if employed, earn lower 
     salaries.
       (3) Truancy is the top-ranking characteristic of 
     criminals--more common than such factors as coming from 
     single-parent families and being abused as children.
       (4) High rates of truancy are linked to high daytime 
     burglary rates and high vandalism.
       (5) As much as 44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes 
     place during school hours.
       (6) As many as 75 percent of children ages 13 to 16 who are 
     arrested and prosecuted for crimes are truants.
       (7) Some cities report as many as 70 percent of daily 
     student absences are unexcused, and the total number of 
     absences in a single city can reach 4,000 per day.
       (8) Society pays a significant social and economic cost due 
     to truancy: only 34 percent of inmates have completed high 
     school education; 17 percent of youth under age 18 entering 
     adult prisons have not completed grade school (8th grade or 
     less), 25 percent completed 10th grade, and 2 percent 
     completed high school.
       (9) Truants and later high school drop outs cost the Nation 
     $240,000,000,000 in lost earnings and foregone taxes over 
     their lifetimes, and the cost of crime control is staggering.
       (10) In many instances, parents are unaware a child is 
     truant.
       (11) Effective truancy prevention, early intervention, and 
     accountability programs can improve school attendance and 
     reduce daytime crime rates.
       (12) There is a lack of targeted funding for effective 
     truancy prevention programs in current law.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible partnership.--The term ``eligible 
     partnership'' means a partnership between 1 or more qualified 
     units of local government and 1 or more local educational 
     agencies.
       (2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (3) Qualified unit of local government.--The term 
     ``qualified unit of local government'' means a unit of local 
     government that has in effect, as of the date on which the 
     eligible partnership submits an application for a grant under 
     this section, a statute or regulation that meets the 
     requirements of section 223(a)(14) of the Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency and Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5633(a)(14)).
       (4) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means any city, county, township, town, borough, 
     parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State, or any Indian tribe.
       (b) Grant Authority.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Education, shall make grants in 
     accordance with this section on a competitive basis to 
     eligible partnerships to reduce truancy and the incidence of 
     daytime juvenile crime.
       (c) Maximum Amount; Allocation; Renewal.--
       (1) Maximum amount.--The total amount awarded to an 
     eligible partnership under this section in any fiscal year 
     shall not exceed $100,000.
       (2) Allocation.--Not less than 25 percent of each grant 
     awarded to an eligible partnership under this section shall 
     be allocated for use by the local educational agency or 
     agencies participating in the partnership.
       (3) Renewal.--A grant awarded under this section for a 
     fiscal year may be renewed for an additional period of not 
     more than 2 fiscal years.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Grant amounts made available under this 
     section may be used by an eligible partnership to 
     comprehensively address truancy through the use of--
       (A) parental involvement in prevention activities, 
     including meaningful incentives for parental responsibility;
       (B) sanctions, including community service, or drivers' 
     license suspension for students who are habitually truant;
       (C) parental accountability, including fines, teacher-aid 
     duty, or community service;
       (D) in-school truancy prevention programs, including 
     alternative education and in-school suspension;
       (E) involvement of the local law enforcement, social 
     services, judicial, business, and

[[Page 4788]]

     religious communities, and nonprofit organizations;
       (F) technology, including automated telephone notice to 
     parents and computerized attendance system;
       (G) elimination of 40-day count and other unintended 
     incentives to allow students to be truant after a certain 
     time of school year; or
       (H) juvenile probation officer collaboration with 1 or more 
     local educational agencies.
       (2) Model programs.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Attorney General may give priority to funding the following 
     programs and programs that attempt to replicate one or more 
     of the following model programs:
       (A) The Truancy Intervention Project of the Fulton County, 
     Georgia, Juvenile Court.
       (B) The TABS (Truancy Abatement and Burglary Suppression) 
     program of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
       (C) The Roswell Daytime Curfew Program of Roswell, New 
     Mexico.
       (D) The Stop, Cite and Return Program of Rohnert Park, 
     California.
       (E) The Stay in School Program of New Haven, Connecticut.
       (F) The Atlantic County Project Helping Hand of Atlantic 
     County, New Jersey.
       (G) The THRIVE (Truancy Habits Reduced Increasing Valuable 
     Education) initiative of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
       (H) The Norfolk, Virginia project using computer software 
     and data collection.
       (I) The Community Service Early Intervention Program of 
     Marion, Ohio.
       (J) The Truancy Reduction Program of Bakersfield, 
     California.
       (K) The Grade Court program of Farmington, New Mexico.
       (L) Any other model program that the Attorney General 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.
                                  ____


                                 S. 640

       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 ``Safer Communities 
     Partnership Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE REPLICATION OF RECENT 
                   SUCCESSFUL JUVENILE CRIME REDUCTION STRATEGIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General (or a designee of 
     the Attorney General), in conjunction with the Secretary of 
     the Treasury (or the designee of the Secretary), shall 
     establish a pilot program (referred to in this section as the 
     ``program'') to encourage and support communities that adopt 
     a comprehensive approach to suppressing and preventing 
     violent juvenile crime and reducing drug and alcohol abuse 
     among juveniles, patterned after successful State juvenile 
     crime reduction strategies.
       (2) Program.--In carrying out the program, the Attorney 
     General shall--
       (A) make and track grants to grant recipients (referred to 
     in this section as ``coalitions'');
       (B) in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, provide for 
     technical assistance and training, in addition to data 
     collection, and dissemination of relevant information; and
       (C) provide for the general administration of the program.
       (3) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall appoint 
     or designate an Administrator (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Administrator'') to carry out the program.
       (4) Program authorization.--To be eligible to receive an 
     initial grant or a renewal grant under this section, a 
     coalition shall meet each of the following criteria:
       (A) Composition.--The coalition shall consist of 1 or more 
     representatives of--
       (i) the local or tribal police department or sheriff's 
     department;
       (ii) the local prosecutors' office;
       (iii) State or local probation officers;
       (iv) religious affiliated or fraternal organizations 
     involved in crime prevention;
       (v) schools;
       (vi) parents or local grass roots organizations such as 
     neighborhood watch groups;
       (vii) social service agencies involved in crime prevention;
       (viii) a juvenile or youth court judge; and
       (ix) substance and alcohol abuse counselors and treatment 
     providers.
       (B) Other participants.--If possible, in addition to the 
     representatives from the categories listed in subparagraph 
     (A), the coalition shall include 1 or more representatives 
     of--
       (i) the United States Attorney's office;
       (ii) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (iii) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
       (iv) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
       (v) the business community; and
       (vi) researchers who have studied criminal justice and can 
     offer technical or other assistance.
       (C) Coordinated strategy.--A coalition shall submit to the 
     Attorney General, or the Attorney General's designee, a 
     comprehensive plan for reducing violent juvenile crime. To be 
     eligible for consideration, a plan shall--
       (i) ensure close collaboration among all members of the 
     coalition in suppressing and preventing juvenile crime;
       (ii) place heavy emphasis on coordinated enforcement 
     initiatives, such as Federal and State programs that 
     coordinate local police departments, prosecutors, and local 
     community leaders to focus on the suppression of violent 
     juvenile crime involving gangs;
       (iii) ensure that there is close collaboration between 
     police and probation officers in the supervision of juvenile 
     offenders, such as initiatives that coordinate the efforts of 
     parents, school officials, and police and probation officers 
     to patrol the streets and make home visits to ensure that 
     offenders comply with the terms of their probation;
       (iv) ensure that a program is in place to trace all 
     firearms seized from crime scenes or offenders in an effort 
     to identify illegal gun traffickers;
       (v) ensure that effective crime prevention programs are in 
     place, such as programs that provide after-school safe havens 
     and other opportunities for at-risk youth to escape or avoid 
     gang or other criminal activity, and to reduce recidivism; 
     and
       (vi) ensure that a program is in place to divert nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders into substance or alcohol abuse treatment, 
     the successful completion of which may result in a suspended 
     sentence for the offense, and the unsuccessful completion of 
     which may result in an enhanced sentence for the offense.
       (D) Accountability.--A coalition shall--
       (i) establish a system to measure and report outcomes 
     consistent with common indicators and evaluation protocols 
     established by the Administrator and that receives the 
     approval of the Administrator; and
       (ii) devise a detailed model for measuring and evaluating 
     the success of the plan of the coalition in reducing violent 
     juvenile crime, and provide assurances that the plan will be 
     evaluated on a regular basis to assess progress in reducing 
     violent juvenile crime.
       (5) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall give priority to coalitions 
     representing communities with demonstrated juvenile crime and 
     drug abuse problems.
       (6) Grant amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator may award a grant to an 
     eligible coalition under this section, in an amount not to 
     exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the amount of non-Federal funds raised by the 
     coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal 
     year; and
       (ii) $400,000.
       (B) Nonsupplanting requirement.--A coalition seeking funds 
     shall provide reasonable assurances that funds made available 
     under this program to States or units of local government 
     shall be so used as to supplement and increase (but not 
     supplant) the level of the State, local, and other non-
     Federal funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds 
     be made available for programs described in this section, and 
     shall in no event replace such State, local, or other non-
     Federal funds.
       (C) Suspension of grants.--If a coalition fails to continue 
     to meet the criteria set forth in this section, the 
     Administrator may suspend the grant, after providing written 
     notice to the grant recipient and an opportunity to appeal.
       (D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph (D), the 
     Administrator may award a renewal grant to grant recipient 
     under this subparagraph for each fiscal year following the 
     fiscal year for which an initial grant is awarded, in an 
     amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised 
     by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that 
     fiscal year, during the 4-year period following the period of 
     the initial grant.
       (7) Permitted use of funds.--A coalition receiving funds 
     under this section may expend such Federal funds on any use 
     or program that is contained in the plan submitted to the 
     Administrator.
       (8) Congressional consultation.--
       (A) In general.--Two years after the date of implementation 
     of the program established in this section, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to Congress a 
     report reviewing the effectiveness of the program in 
     suppressing and reducing violent juvenile crime in the 
     participating communities.
       (B) Contents of report.--The report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) an analysis of each community participating in the 
     program, along with information regarding the plan undertaken 
     in the community, and the effectiveness of the plan in 
     reducing violent juvenile crime; and
       (ii) recommendations regarding the efficacy of continuing 
     the program.
       (b) Information Collection and Dissemination With Respect 
     to Coalitions.--
       (1) Coalition information.--For the purpose of audit and 
     examination, the Attorney General--
       (A) shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and 
     records that are pertinent to any grant or grant renewal 
     request under this section; and

[[Page 4789]]

       (B) may periodically request information from a coalition 
     to ensure that the coalition meets the applicable criteria.
       (2) Reporting.--The Attorney General shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable and in a manner consistent with applicable 
     law, minimize reporting requirements by a coalition and 
     expedite any application for a renewal grant made under this 
     section.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2003, of which--
       (A) not less than $1,000,000 in each fiscal year shall be 
     used for coalitions representing communities with a 
     population of not more than 50,000; and
       (B) not less than 2 percent in each fiscal year shall be 
     used for technical assistance and training under subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).
       (2) Source of sums.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     pursuant to this subsection may be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 641. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide for 
enhanced information regarding credit card balance payment terms and 
conditions, and to provide for enhanced reporting of credit card 
solicitations to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
and to Congress, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                    enhanced credit card disclosures

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation on a subject that was the focus of considerable discussion 
last fall, during the Senate's consideration of bankruptcy reform 
legislation.
  During that debate, the Senate examined whether the increased rate of 
consumer bankruptcies in the Nation resulted solely from consumers' 
access to an excessively permissive bankruptcy process, or whether 
other factors also contributed to this increase. Ultimately it 
concluded that the record increase in bankruptcy filings across the 
nation is due not only to the ease with which one can enter the 
bankruptcy system, but also to the unparalleled levels of consumer 
debt--especially credit card debt--being run up across the country. As 
Senator Durbin noted in his opening statement on the bankruptcy reform 
bill last fall, and as the CBO, FDIC, and numerous economists have 
found, the rate of increase in bankruptcy filings is virtually 
identical to the rate of increase in consumer debt.
  This is not a coincidence. Rather, increased bankruptcies proceed 
directly from the fact that Americans are bombarded daily by credit 
card solicitations that promise easy access to credit without informing 
their targets of the implications of signing up for such credit.
  During last fall's debate, the Senate also concluded that 
irresponsible borrowing could be reduced, and many bankruptcies 
averted, if Americans were provided with some basic information in 
their credit card materials regarding the consequences of assuming 
greater debt. A consensus emerged that credit card companies have some 
affirmative obligation to provide such information to consumers in 
their solicitations, monthly statements, and purchasing materials, in 
light of their aggressive pursuit of less and less knowledgeable 
borrowers.
  As a result of this emerging consensus, last year's Senate bankruptcy 
bill--S. 1301--contained several provisions in the Manager's Amendment 
addressing credit card debt, and requiring specific disclosures by 
credit card companies in their payment and solicitation materials. 
These provisions, which I sponsored along with Senators Dodd and 
Durbin, were vital to the Senate's success in adopting balanced 
bankruptcy reform legislation that placed responsibility for the surge 
in consumer bankruptcies on debtors and creditors alike, and enabled 
the Senate to pass its bankruptcy bill by the overwhelming margin of 
97-1.
  Unfortunately, the House-Senate conference committee struck these 
disclosure provisions from its final conference report, leaving the 
bankruptcy bill again a one-sided document that failed to account for 
the role credit card companies play in the accumulation of credit card 
debt and in increased consumer bankruptcy rates. As a result of the 
conference committee's actions, the conference report died in the 
waning days of the 105th Congress, amid pledges by the majority to 
resurrect it in the early days of the 106th Congress.
  Mr. President, if we are indeed going to enter again into a debate on 
bankruptcy legislation in the 106th Congress, it remains my firm belief 
that Congress must address both sides of the consumer bankruptcy 
equation--both the flaws in the bankruptcy system that make it easy for 
people to declare bankruptcy even if they have the ability to pay their 
debts, and the lending practices that encourage people on the economic 
margins to accumulate debts that are beyond their ability to repay.
  I therefore rise today to introduce legislation that is similar, 
though not identical, to the language included in last year's Senate 
bankruptcy bill. It is my hope that this bill will stimulate discussion 
about the responsibilities of lenders in the bankruptcy equation, and 
that, when the time comes to debate bankruptcy reform, the nature and 
extent of these responsibilities will be a large part of the 
discussion.
  In short, this legislation amends the Truth in Lending Act to require 
credit card companies to disclose the following basic information in 
each monthly statement:
  (1) The required minimum payment on a consumer's monthly balance;
  (2) The number of months it will take to pay off that balance if the 
consumer makes minimum monthly payments;
  (3) The total cost, with interest, of paying off that balance if the 
consumer continues to make only minimum monthly payments; and
  (4) The monthly payment amount if the consumer seeks to pay off the 
balance in 36 months.
  The legislation also requires that when a debtor purchases property 
under a credit card plan, the retailer must disclose to the debtor, if 
applicable:
  (1) That the creditor now has a security interest in the property;
  (2) The nature of the security interest;
  (3) How the security interest may be enforced in the event of non-
payment of the credit card balance; and
  (4) That the debtor must not dispose of the secured property until 
the balance on that account is fully paid.
  My bill calls for the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate model forms 
for these disclosures and, finally, requires credit card companies to 
provide to the Fed, and the Fed to Congress, data regarding credit card 
solicitations.
  This bill is not about restricting access to credit. Rather, it is 
about providing consumers with the information they need to make 
intelligent choices about whether to assume more debt. It advances the 
goal of consumer responsibility that should be at the heart of any 
efforts at bankruptcy reform by Congress, and I therefore urge my 
colleagues to review this legislation carefully and to draw upon it 
when--if--the issue of consumer bankruptcy reemerges in the 106th 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Burns, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Craig, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, 
        Mr. Lugar, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray, and 
        Mr. Grams):
  S. 642. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                   farm and ranch risk management act

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Baucus 
and others, I am introducing the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act of 
1999. This bill gives farmers a necessary tool to manage the risk of 
price and income fluctuations inherent in agriculture. It does this by 
encouraging farmers to save some of their income during good years and 
allowing the funds to supplement income during bad years. This new tool 
will more fully equip family farmers to deal with the vagaries of the 
marketplace.

[[Page 4790]]

  Farming is a unique sector of the American economy. Agriculture 
represents one-sixth of our Gross Domestic Product. It consists of 
hundreds of thousands of farmers across the nation, many of whom 
operate small, family farms. These farms often support entire families, 
and even several generations of a family. They work hard every day to 
produce the food consumed by this country and by much of the world.
  Yet, farming remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. 
The income of a farm family depends, in large part, on factors outside 
its control. Weather is one of those factors. In 1997, for instance, 
the income of North Dakota farmers dropped 98% due to flooding. Weather 
can completely wipe out a farmer. At best, weather can cause a farmer's 
income to fluctuate wildly.
  Another factor is the uncertainty of international markets. Iowa 
farmers now export 40% of all they produce. But what happens, for 
example, when European countries impose trade barriers on beef, pork 
and genetically-modified feed grain? And what happens when Asian 
governments devalue their currencies? Exports fall and farm income 
declines through no fault of the farmer, but because of decisions made 
in foreign countries.
  Today, farm families face their most severe crisis since the 1980's. 
Forces beyond the control of the individual farmer have led to record 
low prices for grain and livestock. The outlook for these families is 
dismal. Above normal production in 1998 led to nearly unprecedented 
grain surpluses. In fact, the USDA predicts soybean carry-over stocks 
will be 95% higher for the 1998- 99 marketing season than for the same 
period last year--the largest since 1986. With this much grain in the 
bins, a quick recovery in grain prices is highly unlikely.
  At present, the only help for these farmers is a reactionary policy 
of government intervention. The USDA recently committed $50 million in 
direct aid to hog producers to help them combat the current crisis. In 
his State of the Union Address, the President pledged additional 
support for farmers. While we must do all we can to help farmers pull 
through the current crisis, we must also realize that this aid is 
merely a short-term solution. Why must farm families wait for a crisis 
before getting the help they need?
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is a proactive measure 
that will help farmers prevent future crises on their own. It equips 
them with the ability to offset cyclical downturns that are inherent in 
their profession without government intervention. In that way, this 
bill is complementary with the philosophy of the new farm program. Many 
farmers I have talked to are pleased with the new program, which 
returned business decisions to the farmers, not bureaucrats at the 
Department of Agriculture, and not elected officials. Under the new 
program, farmers determine for themselves what to plant according to 
the demands of the market. Likewise, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management 
Act allows the farmer to decide whether to defer his income for later 
years and when to withdraw funds to supplement his operation.
  The volatile nature of commodity markets can make it difficult for 
family farmers to survive even a normal business cycle. When prices are 
high, farmers often pay so much of their income in taxes that they are 
unable to save anything. When prices drop again, farmers can be faced 
with liquidity problems. This bill allows farmers to manage their 
income, to smooth out the highs and lows of the commodity markets.
  Mr. President, I will take just a moment to explain how the bill 
works. Eligible farmers are allowed to make contributions to tax-
deferred accounts, also known as FARRM accounts. The contributions are 
tax-deductible and limited to 20% of the farmer's taxable income for 
the year. The contributions are invested in cash or other interest-
bearing obligations. The interest is taxed during the year it is 
earned.
  The funds can stay in the account for up to five years. Upon 
withdrawal, the funds are taxed as regular income. If the funds are not 
withdrawn five years after they were invested, they are taxed as income 
and subject to an additional 10% penalty.
  Essentially, the farmer is given a five-year window to manage his 
money in a way that is best for his own operation. The farmer can 
contribute to the account in good years and withdraw from the account 
when his income is low.
  This bill helps the farmer help himself. It is not a new government 
subsidy for agriculture. It will not create a new bureaucracy 
purporting to help farmers. The bill simply provides farmers with a 
fighting chance to survive the down times and an opportunity to succeed 
when prices eventually increase.
  Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 642

       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 ``Farm and Ranch Risk 
     Management Act''.

     SEC. 2. FARM AND RANCH RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part II of subchapter E of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     taxable year for which deductions taken) is amended by 
     inserting after section 468B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 468C. FARM AND RANCH RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

       ``(a) Deduction Allowed.--In the case of an individual 
     engaged in an eligible farming business, there shall be 
     allowed as a deduction for any taxable year the amount paid 
     in cash by the taxpayer during the taxable year to a Farm and 
     Ranch Risk Management Account (hereinafter referred to as the 
     `FARRM Account').
       ``(b) Limitation.--The amount which a taxpayer may pay into 
     the FARRM Account for any taxable year shall not exceed 20 
     percent of so much of the taxable income of the taxpayer 
     (determined without regard to this section) which is 
     attributable (determined in the manner applicable under 
     section 1301) to any eligible farming business.
       ``(c) Eligible Farming Business.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible farming business' means any 
     farming business (as defined in section 263A(e)(4)) which is 
     not a passive activity (within the meaning of section 469(c)) 
     of the taxpayer.
       ``(d) FARRM Account.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `FARRM Account' means a trust 
     created or organized in the United States for the exclusive 
     benefit of the taxpayer, but only if the written governing 
     instrument creating the trust meets the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) No contribution will be accepted for any taxable year 
     in excess of the amount allowed as a deduction under 
     subsection (a) for such year.
       ``(B) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n)) 
     or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the manner in which such person will 
     administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(C) The assets of the trust consist entirely of cash or 
     of obligations which have adequate stated interest (as 
     defined in section 1274(c)(2)) and which pay such interest 
     not less often than annually.
       ``(D) All income of the trust is distributed currently to 
     the grantor.
       ``(E) The assets of the trust will not be commingled with 
     other property except in a common trust fund or common 
     investment fund.
       ``(2) Account taxed as grantor trust.--The grantor of a 
     FARRM Account shall be treated for purposes of this title as 
     the owner of such Account and shall be subject to tax thereon 
     in accordance with subpart E of part I of subchapter J of 
     this chapter (relating to grantors and others treated as 
     substantial owners).
       ``(e) Inclusion of Amounts Distributed.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     there shall be includible in the gross income of the taxpayer 
     for any taxable year--
       ``(A) any amount distributed from a FARRM Account of the 
     taxpayer during such taxable year, and
       ``(B) any deemed distribution under--
       ``(i) subsection (f)(1) (relating to deposits not 
     distributed within 5 years),
       ``(ii) subsection (f)(2) (relating to cessation in eligible 
     farming business), and
       ``(iii) subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (f)(3) 
     (relating to prohibited transactions and pledging account as 
     security).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any distribution to the extent attributable to income 
     of the Account, and
       ``(B) the distribution of any contribution paid during a 
     taxable year to a FARRM Account to the extent that such 
     contribution

[[Page 4791]]

     exceeds the limitation applicable under subsection (b) if 
     requirements similar to the requirements of section 408(d)(4) 
     are met.
     For purposes of subparagraph (A), distributions shall be 
     treated as first attributable to income and then to other 
     amounts.
       ``(3) Exclusion from self-employment tax.--Amounts included 
     in gross income under this subsection shall not be included 
     in determining net earnings from self-employment under 
     section 1402.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Tax on deposits in account which are not distributed 
     within 5 years.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, at the close of any taxable year, 
     there is a nonqualified balance in any FARRM Account--
       ``(i) there shall be deemed distributed from such Account 
     during such taxable year an amount equal to such balance, and
       ``(ii) the taxpayer's tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     taxable year shall be increased by 10 percent of such deemed 
     distribution.

     The preceding sentence shall not apply if an amount equal to 
     such nonqualified balance is distributed from such Account to 
     the taxpayer before the due date (including extensions) for 
     filing the return of tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     year (or, if earlier, the date the taxpayer files such return 
     for such year).
       ``(B) Nonqualified balance.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `nonqualified balance' means any balance in the 
     Account on the last day of the taxable year which is 
     attributable to amounts deposited in such Account before the 
     4th preceding taxable year.
       ``(C) Ordering rule.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     distributions from a FARRM Account shall be treated as made 
     from deposits in the order in which such deposits were made, 
     beginning with the earliest deposits. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, income of such an Account shall be 
     treated as a deposit made on the date such income is received 
     by the Account.
       ``(2) Cessation in eligible farming business.--At the close 
     of the first disqualification period after a period for which 
     the taxpayer was engaged in an eligible farming business, 
     there shall be deemed distributed from the FARRM Account (if 
     any) of the taxpayer an amount equal to the balance in such 
     Account at the close of such disqualification period. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
     `disqualification period' means any period of 2 consecutive 
     taxable years for which the taxpayer is not engaged in an 
     eligible farming business.
       ``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the 
     following rules shall apply for purposes of this section:
       ``(A) Section 408(e)(2) (relating to loss of exemption of 
     account where individual engages in prohibited transaction).
       ``(B) Section 408(e)(4) (relating to effect of pledging 
     account as security).
       ``(C) Section 408(g) (relating to community property laws).
       ``(D) Section 408(h) (relating to custodial accounts).
       ``(4) Time when payments deemed made.--For purposes of this 
     section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment to 
     a FARRM Account on the last day of a taxable year if such 
     payment is made on account of such taxable year and is made 
     within 3\1/2\ months after the close of such taxable year.
       ``(5) Individual.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `individual' shall not include an estate or trust.
       ``(g) Reports.--The trustee of a FARRM Account shall make 
     such reports regarding such Account to the Secretary and to 
     the person for whose benefit the Account is maintained with 
     respect to contributions, distributions, and such other 
     matters as the Secretary may require under regulations. The 
     reports required by this subsection shall be filed at such 
     time and in such manner and furnished to such persons at such 
     time and in such manner as may be required by those 
     regulations.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed in Computing Adjusted Gross Income.--
     Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code (defining adjusted 
     gross income) is amended by inserting after paragraph (17) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Contributions to farm and ranch risk management 
     accounts.--The deduction allowed by section 468C(a).''
       (c) Tax on Excess Contributions.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 4973 of such Code (relating 
     to tax on certain excess contributions) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3), by redesignating 
     paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) a FARRM Account (within the meaning of section 
     468C(d)), or''.
       (2) Section 4973 of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Excess Contributions to FARRM Accounts.--For purposes 
     of this section, in the case of a FARRM Account (within the 
     meaning of section 468C(d)), the term `excess contributions' 
     means the amount by which the amount contributed for the 
     taxable year to the Account exceeds the amount which may be 
     contributed to the Account under section 468C(b) for such 
     taxable year. For purposes of this subsection, any 
     contribution which is distributed out of the FARRM Account in 
     a distribution to which section 468C(e)(2)(B) applies shall 
     be treated as an amount not contributed.''.
       (3) The section heading for section 4973 of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4973. EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN ACCOUNTS, 
                   ANNUITIES, ETC.''.

       (4) The table of sections for chapter 43 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 4973 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 4973. Excess contributions to certain accounts, annuities, 
              etc.''.

       (d) Tax on Prohibited Transactions.--
       (1) Subsection (c) of section 4975 of such Code (relating 
     to prohibited transactions) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rule for farrm accounts.--A person for whose 
     benefit a FARRM Account (within the meaning of section 
     468C(d)) is established shall be exempt from the tax imposed 
     by this section with respect to any transaction concerning 
     such Account (which would otherwise be taxable under this 
     section) if, with respect to such transaction, the account 
     ceases to be a FARRM Account by reason of the application of 
     section 468C(f)(3)(A) to such Account.''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of section 4975(e) of such Code is 
     amended by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively, and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) a FARRM Account described in section 468C(d),''.
       (e) Failure To Provide Reports on FARRM Accounts.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 6693(a) of such Code (relating to 
     failure to provide reports on certain tax-favored accounts or 
     annuities) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) section 468C(g) (relating to FARRM Accounts).''.
       (f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     C of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 468B 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 468C. Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts.''.

       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague 
Senator Grassley in introducing the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act 
of 1999.
  The American farm is the cornerstone of our rich cultural heritage. 
Yet farming remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. A 
family farmer's income depends on good weather and strong international 
markets. When either of these two factors turn negative, farmers have 
few tools at their disposal to cushion the blow.
  Farm families are now suffering record low prices on grain and 
livestock in the most severe farming crisis since the 1980's. Who could 
have imagined back in 1996 when Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act 
that wheat prices would drop from $4.50 a bushel to $2.81 a bushel by 
September 1998? As wheat and other agricultural commodity prices dipped 
to record lows, America's producers have been stranded without a safety 
net, causing a severe financial crisis.
  I sincerely hope that 1999 will be the ``Year of Recovery'' for our 
battered farm economy. I believe we can make this happen by focusing on 
three goals:
  We must pry open foreign markets to agricultural products.
  We must help agricultural producers at home.
  We must install a permanent safety net to help producers weather 
times of crisis.
  In two other bills I have introduced, I have proposed changes to the 
crop insurance program in order to help re-build this safety net for 
farmers. Today's introduction of the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act 
is another step in this re-building process. The FARRM Act is a pro-
active measure that would give farmers a five-year window to manage 
their money. It allows them to put aside up to 20% of their annual 
income for up to 5 years in a tax-deferred FARRM account. They only pay 
taxes on the amount set-aside when it is withdrawn from the account.
  The FARRM bill allows the farmer to help himself. It allows farmers 
to manage their incomes, to smooth out the

[[Page 4792]]

highs and lows of the commodity markets. It is not a new subsidy, nor 
is it a new government program. It is simply a new tool farmers can use 
to cope with an uncertain world. It provides American farmers with a 
fighting chance to survive the down times with an opportunity to enjoy 
their success during the good times.
  I believe the FARRM Act is an essential strand in the safety net we 
must weave to protect our nation's farm families. I urge my colleagues 
to support the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 645. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to waive the oxygen content 
requirement for reformulated gasoline that results in no greater 
emissions of air pollutants than reformulated gasoline meeting the 
oxygen content requirement; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


                            eliminating mtbe

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
to enable the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the 
additive, MTBE, from gasoline. The goal in this bill, as in my previous 
three bills (S. 266, S. 267 and S. 268) is to eliminate MTBE from 
drinking water.
  Under this bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could waive 
the two percent reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement of the 
Clean Air Act in any state if gasoline with less than two percent or 
with no oxygenates does not result in greater emissions than emissions 
from reformulated gasoline containing two percent oxygenates.
  MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl ether is added to gasoline by some 
refiners in response to federal Clean Air Act requirements that areas 
with the most serious air pollution problems use reformulated or 
cleaner-burning gasoline. This federal law requires that this gasoline 
contain two percent by weight oxygenates. MTBE has been the oxygenate 
of choice by some refiners.
  The Clean Air Act's reformulated gas requirements have no doubt 
helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, but the two 
percent oxygenate requirement has imposed limitations on the level of 
flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to states and limited the 
flexibility of refiners in making clean gasoline.
  I am very troubled to learn from a March 16 article in the Sacramento 
Bee that the gasoline refiners were aware of MTBE's dangers long before 
it was approved for use in California. Researchers in Maine pointed out 
MTBE's harms in 1986. The Bee reporter, after studying industry 
research documents, quotes a 1992 industry scientific paper: ``MTBE 
plumes are expected to move faster and further than benzene plumes 
emanating from a gasoline spill. Moreover, the solubility of MTBE is 
nearly 25 times that of benzene and its concentration in gasoline will 
be approximately 10 times greater.''
  A spokesman for the Oxygenated Fuels Association is also quoted as 
saying that the chemical properties that make MTBE problematic in water 
``were widely known'' in the 1980s.
  Bob Reeb, of the Association of California Water Agencies, is quoted 
as saying, had they known of MTBE's adverse effects, ``We would have 
fought like hell to keep it out of gasoline. It appears to be a classic 
case of placing corporate profits above public health.''
  The Sacramento Bee article is appended to my statement.
  A number of authorities have called attention to MTBE's harm and have 
called for prompt action.
  The American Medical Association House of Delegates and the American 
Public Health Association approved resolutions calling for a moratorium 
on the use of MTBE in 1994--1994!
  The University of California released a five-volume study in November 
1998, and recommended phasing out MTBE. UC found that ``there are 
significant risks and costs associated with water contamination due to 
the use of MTBE.'' The University of California study says: ``If MTBE 
continues to be used at current levels and more sources become 
contaminated, the potential for regional degradation of water 
resources, especially groundwater basins, will increase. Severity of 
water shortages during drought years will be exacerbated.''
  The UC study says that oil companies can make cleaner-burning 
gasoline that meets federal air standards without MTBE and that they 
should be given the flexibility to do that. The UC study found that 
``there is no significant additional air quality benefit to the use of 
oxygenates such as MTBE in reformulated gasoline, relative to'' 
California's reformulated gasoline formula.
  The California Environmental Protection Agency on February 19, 23, 24 
held two public hearings on the University of California report. A 
total of 109 people spoke at the hearings and 987 written comments 
(including mine) were submitted as of today, and the comment period is 
still open. Of the 109 speakers, 12 supported continued use of MTBE. 
Cal EPA is still reading the written comments.
  A June 12, 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study 
concluded that MTBE is a ``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in 
groundwater throughout California and does not degrade significantly 
once it is there. This study found that groundwater has been 
contaminated at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites. The Livermore 
study says that ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater 
resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.''
  The Association of California Water Agencies has detected MTBE in 
shallow groundwater at over 10,000 sites in the state and in some 
deeper drinking wells. Their December 1998 study documented MTBE 
contamination in many of the state's surface water reservoirs, pointing 
to motorized recreation as a major source.
  The environmental group, Communities for a Better Environment, issued 
a report this month calling for a ban on MTBE in our state because it 
has contamined groundwater, drinking water and land.
  I have received letters and resolutions opposing MTBE from 56 
California local governments, water districts, and air districts.
  In higher concentrations, MTBE smells like turpentine and it tastes 
like paint thinner. Relatively low levels of MTBE can make drinking 
water simply undrinkable.
  MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through 
soil and gravel. It, therefore, poses a more rapid threat to water 
supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is 
easily traced, but it is very difficult and expensive to cleanup. 
California water agencies say it costs $1 million to cleanup per well 
and $5 million plus for reservoirs.
  Contamination of drinking water MTBE continues to grow. A December 
14, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a ``Ticking 
Bomb.''
  The Lawrence Livermore study says that ground water has been 
contaminated at over 10,000 sites in my state.
  South Lake Tahoe has closed 14 wells and is implementing a ban on 
personal watercraft. Ten plumes of MTBE released by gas stations (some 
from a hose torn loose, some from spills, some from underground tanks) 
have caused the shutdown of 35% of the districts' drinking water wells, 
eliminating nearly one-fifth of its water supply since September 1997. 
The levels of groundwater contamination there are as high as 1,200,000 
parts per billion. The South Tahoe Public Utility District has spent 
nearly $1 million in non-budget funds on MTBE.
  The February 5 Sacramento Bee reported that MTBE has been detected 30 
miles away from Lake Tahoe, that ``it apparently made its way to the 
reservoir through South Lake Tahoe's wastewater export system. . . Six 
service stations working to clear MTBE from contaminated areas have 
been discharging water into the sewer system after a treatment 
process.'' The article quotes Dawn Forsythe, a Tahoe authority: ``It's 
going all the way through the sewer system, through the treatment 
system, through the export pipeline, across a stream and now it's in 
the reservoir.''

[[Page 4793]]

  MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of 
cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego. MTBE has also been 
detected in numerous California reservoirs including Lake Shasta in 
Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote 
and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara.
  Drinking water wells in Santa Clara Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) 
and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista Water Company) have been shut down 
because of MTBE contamination.
  In addition, MTBE has been detected in the following surface water 
reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District), 
Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District), Pardee 
Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal Utility 
District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency).
  The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which 
lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of 
shallow gas tanks beneath the surface. MTBE has been discovered in 
publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from the City Council 
Chamber in South Lake Tahoe. In Glennvile, California, near 
Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 
190,000 parts per billion--dramatically exceeding the California 
Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion.
  While many scientists say we need more definitive research on the 
human health effects of MTBE, the U.S. EPA has indicated that ``MTBE is 
an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.''
  Dr. John Froines, a distinguished UCLA scientist, testified at the 
California EPA hearing on February 23 as follows:

       We in our report have concluded the cancer evidence in 
     animals is relevant to humans.
       There are ``acute effects in occupationally-exposed 
     workers, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, eye and 
     respiratory irritation, vomiting, sensation of spaciness or 
     disorientation and burning of the nose and throat.''
       MTBE exposure was associated with excess cancers in rats 
     and mice, therefore, multi-species,'' citing multiple, 
     ``endpoints, lymphoma, leukemia, testicular cancer, liver and 
     kidney.
       All four of the tumor sites observed in animals may be 
     predictive of human cancer risk.

  He further testified:
       The related question is whether there is evidence which 
     demonstrates the animal cancers are not relevant to humans. 
     The answer developed in detail in our report is no. There is 
     no convincing evidence that the data is specific to animals. 
     That is our conclusion. Nobody has come forward to tell us a 
     basis to change that point of view.

  `These, to me, are troubling statements from a reputable authority.
  While the data is incomplete, we do know that MTBE is showing up in 
other states. U.S. EPA funded a study by the University of 
Massachusetts last year, which was not able to collect data from every 
state, but which reported that 25 states have reports of private 
drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. Nineteen states reported 
public drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. EPA experts 
concluded, ``MTBE detections by most state programs is common'' and 
``MTBE may contaminate groundwater in unexpected locations and in 
unexpected ways, such as at diesel fuel sites or from surface dumping 
of small amounts of gasoline.'' (Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, August/
September 1998, ``Study Reports LUST Programs Are Felling Effects of 
MTBE Releases.'')
  Here are some examples of problems in other states:

       A Maine survey found that 15 percent of drinking wells had 
     detectable amounts of MTBE and 5,200 private wells may 
     contain MTBE above the state's drinking water standard.
       MTBE has contaminated the well water for over 200 homes in 
     New York.
       In Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, MTBE was detected in tap water, 
     suspected from a leak from a gas station tank.
       Texas, with over 21,000 leaking underground fuel tanks, is 
     finding MTBE in drinking water.
       MTBE has been detected in drinking water in Kansas and 
     Virginia.

  Clearly, MTBE is a problem in many states.
  The California Air Resources Board in 1994 adopted a clean gas 
formula that is called a ``predictive model,'' a performance-based 
program that allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to 
meet clean air requirements.
  The predictive model provides twice the clean air benefits required 
by the federal government. With this model, refiners can make cleaner 
burning gasoline with one percent oxygen or even no oxygen at all. The 
federal two percent oxygenate requirement limits this kind of 
innovation. In fact, Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already making MTBE-
free gasoline.
  Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline 
program, there has been a 300-ton-per-day decrease in ozone forming 
ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent 
of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated 
gasoline reduces smog-forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent.
  I have now offered to the Congress 4 approaches to getting MTBE out 
of our drinking water.
  I introduced S. 266 on January 20, a bill to allow California to 
apply its own clean or reformulated gasoline rules as long as emissions 
reductions are equivalent or greater. California's rules are stricter 
than the federal rules and thus meet the air quality requirements of 
the federal Clean Air Act. This bill is the companion to H.R. 11 
introduced by Rep. Bilbray on January 6, 1999.
  S. 267, my second bill, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency to make petroleum releases into drinking water the highest 
priority in the federal underground storage tank cleanup program. This 
bill is needed because underground storage tanks are the major source 
of MTBE into drinking water and federal law does not give EPA specific 
guidance on cleanup priorities.
  The third bill, S. 268, will move from 2006 to 2001 full 
implementation of EPA's current watercraft engine exhaust emissions 
requirements. The California Air Resources Board on December 10, 1998, 
adopted watercraft engine regulations in effect making the federal EPA 
rules effective in 2001, so this bill will make the deadline in the 
federal requirements consistent with California's deadlines. In 
addition, the bill will require an emissions label on these engines 
consistent with California's requirements so the consumer can make an 
informed purchasing choice. This bill is needed because watercraft 
engines have remained essentially unchanged since the 1930s and up to 
30 percent of the gas that goes into the motor goes into water 
unburned.
  Dr. John Froines, testified that in California, ``. . . essentially 
every citizen of California is breathing MTBE daily.''
  MTBE is not needed to produce clean air. By allowing the companies 
that supply our state's gasoline to use good science and sound 
environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clear 
Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. I believe U.S. 
EPA should give all states this flexibility.
  MTBE is not needed. Refiners can make gasoline that is clean--
Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already doing that in my state.
  MTBE is an animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen.
  Let's end it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
article from the Sacramento Bee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 645

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

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN 
                   REFORMULATED GASOLINE.

       Section 211(k)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(k)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The oxygen'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) Requirement.--The oxygen''; and
       (2) in the second sentence--

[[Page 4794]]

       (A) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Waivers.--The Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``area upon a'' and inserting the 
     following: ``area--

       ``(I) upon a'';

       (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(II) if the Administrator determines, by regulation, that 
     reformulated gasoline that contains less than 2.0 percent by 
     weight oxygen and meets all other requirements of this 
     subsection will result in total emissions of ozone forming 
     volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants, 
     respectively, that are not greater than the total emissions 
     of those compounds and pollutants resulting from reformulated 
     gasoline that contains at least 2.0 percent by weight oxygen 
     and meets all other requirements of this subsection.''.

                [From the Sacramento Bee, Mar. 16, 1999]

            MTBE Risk to Drinking Water Was Known for Years

                   (By Chris Bowman and Patrick Hoge)

       America's fuel industry knew about the risk to drinking 
     water from MTBE years before domestic refineries more than 
     doubled the chemical's volume in gasoline, but manufacturers 
     marketed the product as an environmental improvement anyway.
       In technical papers and conference presentations, 
     environmental engineers for refineries and government 
     regulators alike predicted that MTBE could become a lingering 
     groundwater menace as its usage increased.
       Sixteen years before MTBE-rich gasoline was approved for 
     statewide use in California to combat air pollution, oil 
     companies knew from their first experience with the fuel 
     additive in New England how quickly methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether can migrate from leaking storage tanks to drinking 
     water wells, company records and technical journals show.
       At the time, the pollution specialists stressed that MTBE 
     was in many ways more worrisome than gasoline's cancer-
     causing benzene.
       ``MTBE plumes are expected to move faster and further than 
     benzene plumes emanating from a gasoline spill,'' three Shell 
     researchers said in an internal 1992 paper. ``Moreover, the 
     solubility of MTBE is nearly 25 times that of benzene, and 
     its concentration in gasoline will be approximately 10 times 
     greater.''
       These papers, recently obtained by The Bee, have renewed 
     importance today in California where the spotlight on the 
     fuel controversy is about to turn on industry.
       Later this month, Gov. Gray Davis is expected to announce 
     that MTBE presents a public health threat and should be 
     phased out of California, sources in his administration say. 
     Such an action would not end the public debate, but rather 
     shift it to the question of who will pay to clean up MTBE and 
     how much cleanup should occur.
       Even if the synthetic compound were banned overnight--a 
     highly unlikely prospect--California would still have to 
     defend its water supplies for many years against MTBE-laced 
     groundwater from past fuel leaks.
       MTBE is a key component of a ``cleaner-burning gasoline'' 
     that has been used in most of California's 27 million 
     vehicles for the past three years. While the gasoline has 
     been credited for removing 300 hundred tons of tailpipe 
     poisons every day in the state, it also has created a 
     Pandora's box underground.
       Increasingly, the compound has found its way into 
     underground reservoirs, in storm-water runoff, in 
     recreational lakes and in wells across the country. In 
     California, MTBE has contaminated 10,000 groundwater sites 
     and tainted Tahoe, Donner, Shasta and several other lakes. It 
     also has knocked out wells in several communities. In South 
     Lake Tahoe, more than a dozen wells have been shut down due 
     to MTBE contamination.
       While scientists are still studying MTBE's health effects--
     the federal government classifies it as a ``possible'' 
     cancer-causing agent in humans--minute amounts of the 
     pollutant can spoil wells by imparting a bitter taste and 
     solvent-like ordor.
       Already some marina-related businesses have taken an 
     economical hit due to water utilities banning fuel-spitting 
     power craft from reservoirs tapped for drinking water. 
     Filtration plants can't remove MTBE without expensive 
     treatment upgrades.
       But the biggest MTBE bill is yet to come, and, one way or 
     another, consumers will ultimately pay for it. That will be 
     in the cleanup of MTBE-laden fuel that has spilled and leaked 
     from pipelines and storage tanks. The restoration is expected 
     to take many years, at a cost of tens of millions to hundreds 
     of millions of dollars a year, a major University of 
     California study recently concluded.
       Makers of gasoline and MTBE put the onus on tank owners and 
     the environmental officials who regulate the tanks and the 
     fuels.
       Officials at Shell Oil Co. headquartered in Houston told 
     The Bee that its 1992 paper describing the environmental 
     downside of MTBE was hardly news.
       ``(It) was in the public domain and already accessible to 
     regulators,'' the company said in a prepared statement. A 
     spokeswoman said it was based on information disseminated at 
     a 1986 pollution control conference co-sponsored by the 
     American Petroleum Institute.
       In the 1980s, the chemical properties making MTBE 
     problematic in water ``were widely known,'' said Charlie 
     Drevna, chief spokesman for Oxygenated Fuels Association, 
     which represents makers of MTBE and other oxygen-bearing fuel 
     components. ``What wasn't known was that the (underground 
     storage tank) program in this country was in total 
     shambles.''
       But the leaking tanks problem has been widely reported for 
     at least the past decade when the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency ordered the tanks replaced or upgraded. 
     Most major brand gasoline stations in California complied by 
     the federal deadline last December.
       California motorists have been paying for a good part of 
     the cleanups from leaking tanks since 1992. They pay about 
     1.2 cents per gallon at the pump toward a $180 million-a-year 
     state cleanup fund that reimburses mostly small businesses.
       The argument that industry should bear more responsibility 
     for the MTBE pollution is beginning to grow. In the past few 
     months, attorneys suing oil companies on behalf of 
     individuals and utilities over MTBE pollution in California, 
     South Carolina and Maine have joined forces. The common 
     allegation is that the oil companies knew or should have 
     known that adding more MTBE to gasoline posed a major threat 
     to drinking water sources.
       ``It would have been astonishing for corporations of this 
     size and complexity not to have known the risk that an 
     additive to a product that would become so widespread would 
     pose to the environment and to the public,'' said Victor 
     Sher, a Sacramento attorney representing the South Tahoe 
     Public Utility District.
       Sher said his lawsuit, filed in 1999, is the first in the 
     nation by a public water supplier that goes after fuel makers 
     on grounds of product liability.
       While the environmentally troublesome properties of MTBE 
     were noted in technical papers from the oil industry and 
     federal regulators, Sher said he has yet to find evidence 
     that the oil industry ever raised those problems before 
     policy-makers as they deliberated the rules for the cleaner-
     burning gasoline.
       ``They should have been telling the regulators, and they 
     should have been looking for alternatives,'' Shea said.
       Shell Oil officials say EPA regulators had plenty of notice 
     in the 1980s, well before 1992 when refiners began to 
     substantially increase the chemical's use to meet the new 
     federal cleaner-burning fuel rules.
       ``The literature then available indicated to government 
     regulators, manufacturers of MTBE and to gasoline 
     manufacturers, including Shell, that the then perceived 
     benefits outweighed the then perceived risks,'' the company 
     statement said.
       Liability aside, the knowledge of MTBE's downside could 
     have changed what ended up in the gas tanks of millions of 
     motorists. The gasoline additive is now the fourth top 
     selling chemical in the United States, with more than 9 
     million tons of it sold annually.
       Water suppliers say they certainly would have raised a 
     fuss.
       ``We would have fought like hell to keep it out of 
     gasoline,'' said Bob Reeb, of the Association of California 
     Water Agencies. ``It appears to be a classic case of placing 
     corporate profits above public health.''
       If that's the case, Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, 
     D-Los Angeles, said, ``We can make the argument that this 
     industry has a very high level of responsibility to provide 
     the cleanup of this contamination.''
       MTBE's critics point out that the trail of responsibility 
     can be traced back at least to 1986 when three researchers 
     from Maine laid out the basic characteristics of MTBE in 
     discussion today: that it moves farther and faster in 
     groundwater, last longer, and is much more difficult to 
     filter out than other gasoline compounds.
       The presentation was at a Houston conference attended by 
     dozens of regulators and industry scientists on ground-water 
     pollutants. It was sponsored by the American Petroleum 
     Institute and the National Well Water Association.
       Two of the Maine paper's authors said their presentation 
     didn't seem to make much of an impact on regulators and 
     industry.
       ``There just seemed to be a feeling that there wasn't 
     anything that was necessary to do now, which puzzles me in 
     retrospect,'' said Peter Garrett, one of the authors. ``I 
     think it was because MTBE was hailed as being the chemical of 
     the future because of its potential to cut down on air 
     pollution.''
       Co-author Marcel Moreau, now an expert on underground 
     tanks, said all of the technical information about the 
     chemical's characteristics was freely supplied by ARCO.
       But as momentum was building on Capitol Hill toward 
     requiring oxygenated compounds like MTBE in gasoline to 
     combat smog, no such environmental concerns surfaced in the 
     public debate either from industry, environmentalists or 
     regulators, according to interviews with key participants.
       MTBE's many critics express amazement that a chemical could 
     have been introduced into the environment on such a massive

[[Page 4795]]

     scale with so little data on its toxicology or behavior in 
     the environment.
       When first added to premium gasoline in 1979, scientists 
     had produced no studies on MTBE's long-term health effects.
       ``It is astonishing that such a technological process could 
     have been started without sufficient technological 
     information that would have enabled us to expose possible 
     adverse health effects of the compound,'' wrote Fiorella 
     Belpoggi, lead researcher in a 1995 investigation of MTBE's 
     cancer-causing potential.
       The recent study of MTBE done by the University of 
     California similarly found that regulators did not do enough 
     to assess MTBE's potential environmental impacts before 
     allowing its huge rise.
       In California, health officials testified recently before 
     the state Legislature that they did not realize that MTBE 
     posed a major groundwater threat until 1995, when Santa 
     Monica reported contamination of one of its wells.
       Ironically, companies like ARCO continued to spend lavishly 
     in 1996 to promote MTBE as an environmentally friendly 
     product that made gasoline burn cleaner.
       The lack of toxicology data remains even today, more than 
     three years after MTBE's introduction in California on a 
     massive scale.
       Industry representatives insist that expensive upgrades of 
     underground tanks already mandated under law will curtail the 
     MTBE problem.
       But others say evidence shows too many other ways that MTBE 
     can get into water wells.
       James Giannopoulos, principal engineer with the state Water 
     Resources Control Board, made a similar point during a recent 
     MTBE hearing in Sacramento.
       ``Even a small failure rate of the more than 50,000 
     upgraded tanks, we believe constitutes a good water quality 
     reason to eliminate MTBE from gasoline,'' he said.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 646. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
increased retirement savings opportunities, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


               retirement savings opportunity act of 1999

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, one question many Americans ask 
themselves is this: Will I have enough to live on when I retire. 
According to a study published by the Employee Benefit Research 
Institute, about one third of Americans are not confident that they 
will have enough to live on in their retirement years. Social Security 
is an important component of an individual's retirement income, but 
savings--whether through personal accounts or through employer-provided 
retirement plans--will help provide for a better life at retirement. 
Another troubling factor is that if you are employed by a small 
business you are far less likely to be eligible for a retirement plan. 
There must be ways to get more Americans interested in providing for 
their retirement years and to get small businesses interested in 
providing retirement benefits for their employees. This is a concern 
that spreads across party lines; everyone knows that there must be 
incentives for promoting retirement savings.
  Despite these concerns, we have a strong system of tax favored 
savings plans in place. For savings through the workplace, there are 
401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and 457 plans, each of which can be 
sponsored by different types of employers. For individual savings, 
there is either the traditional IRA or the Roth IRA. And all these 
different savings vehicles have different limits on how much 
individuals can save. However, our current system can do more and the 
limitations that we placed on retirement savings in times of budgetary 
restraints should be re-examined now. In addition, we should capitalize 
on some of the successful savings incentives and use them to broaden 
our savings base.
  Both Senator Baucus and I are pleased to introduce a new bill, the 
Retirement Savings Opportunity Act of 1999, which will build upon the 
strengths of our current system, yet provide new opportunities for 
people to save for retirement. In addition, this bill would also 
increase the incentives that would help small businesses start and 
maintain retirement plans for its employees. These are issues that 
Senator Baucus is very concerned about and I join him in providing 
these important incentives for small businesses. The provisions of this 
bill are as follows:
  Increase IRA dollar limit. The maximum contribution limit for IRAs 
(both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs) is $2,000. This limit, which has 
been in place since 1982, has never been indexed for inflation. If the 
IRA limit were indexed for inflation it would be close to $5,000. In 
this bill, the limit for all IRAs (both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs) 
will be increased to $5,000 per year. In addition, this limit will be 
adjusted annually for cost of living increases, in $100 increments, so 
that the amount that taxpayers can save with an IRA will never again be 
reduced due to the impact of cost of living increases.
  It is important to remember who makes IRA contributions. An estimated 
26 percent of American households how own a traditional IRA, according 
to a 1998 survey by the Investment Company Institute. In 1993 (the most 
recent year for which comprehensive aggregate data is available) 52 
percent of all IRA owners earned less than $50,000. This same group 
made about 65 percent of all IRA contributions in 1985.
  We know that people at all income levels are limited by the $2,000 
cap on contributions. For example, IRS statistics show that the average 
contribution level in 1993 for people with less than $20,000 in income 
was $1,500. Clearly this means that there were lower income people who 
wanted to make contributions of more than the $2,000 limit.
  In addition, IRAs are the only tax-favored savings vehicle for many 
taxpayers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 48 percent 
of individuals who work in small business establishments were eligible 
for any retirement plan in 1994. This is a problem that both Senator 
Baucus and I try to address elsewhere in this bill by providing greater 
incentives to business for establishing employer-sponsored retirement 
savings plans. However, regardless of the incentives that we may 
provide, not all employers will establish retirement plans for their 
employees. Furthermore, not all employees will stay with one employer 
long enough to receive a benefit. Under current law, the maximum amount 
that an individual can save is too low to provide adequate savings for 
retirement. In order to spur an increase in savings, we believe that an 
increase in the IRA limit is warranted.
  Increase IRA income caps. There are different and confusing caps on 
contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs. They are as follows:
  Tax deductible contributions to traditional IRAs. If an individual is 
an active participant in an employer provided pension plan, the amount 
of a deductible contribution that an individual can make is confusing. 
First of all the $2,000 contribution amount is reduced if the adjusted 
gross income of the taxpayer is over $51,000, if the taxpayer is filing 
a joint return. If the taxpayer is a single or head of household filer, 
the $2,000 contribution amount is reduced if adjusted gross income 
exceeds $31,000. These income limits are scheduled to increase annually 
until the year 2007 when the joint filer limit will be $80,000 and the 
single and head of household filer limit will be $50,000. Married 
taxpayers who file separately are precluded from making deductible 
contributions if their adjusted gross income is above $10,000, unless 
the couple has not lived together for the entire year. Finally, if an 
individual is not an active participant in an employer's plan and the 
individual's spouse is, an individual is not able to make a deductible 
contribution to an IRA if the couple's income is $150,000 or above. 
These are too many restrictions.
  The bill will eliminate these conflicting and confusing income limits 
for deductible IRAs. What this will mean is that all individuals who 
have earned income can make full deductible contributions to a 
traditional IRA. In addition, a homemaker without earnings will be able 
to make IRA contributions.
  Contributions to Roth IRAs. A full $2,000 contribution can only be 
made to a Roth IRA if a single taxpayer's adjusted gross income is less 
than $95,000 and married taxpayer's adjusted gross income is less than 
$150,000. If a taxpayer is married and files separately

[[Page 4796]]

from his or her spouse, the taxpayer cannot make a Roth IRA 
contribution if his or her adjusted gross income exceeds $10,000, 
unless they live apart for the entire year. The bill will eliminate 
these income limits for Roth IRA contributions, so that all taxpayers 
can make a contribution to a Roth IRA. Remember, however, that a 
taxpayer cannot make a full contribution to a Roth IRA and also make a 
full contribution to a traditional IRA; amounts contributed to one type 
of IRA reduce the amounts that can be contributed to the other type of 
IRA.
  Conversion to Roth IRAs. In order to convert to a Roth IRA, an 
individual's adjusted gross income must not exceed $100,000 regardless 
of whether the individual is married filing jointly or single. Married 
individuals who are filing separately cannot convert to a Roth IRA, 
unless they live apart for the entire year. The bill will raise the 
income cap for conversions to $1 million.
  The current income limitations relating to IRAs are needlessly 
complex and are confusing to taxpayers. As we heard at the recent 
Senate Finance Committee hearing on retirement savings, these limits 
are confusing to taxpayers with the result that taxpayers do not fully 
utilize these products. By eliminating these income limitations, which 
affect only a small percentage of taxpayers, we can increase the use of 
IRAs. When Congress restricted the deductibility of IRA contributions 
in 1986, the IRS reported that the level of IRA contributions fell from 
$38 billion to $14 billion in 1987.
  Will taxpayers increase the amount of their savings to IRAs if the 
savings opportunities were increased? According to a 1997 survey 
conducted on behalf of the Savings Coalition, increasing the IRA limits 
would result in more savings for retirement. Sixty-four percent said 
that they would increase the rate of their personal savings with IRAs.
  Economic studies also have shown that increasing the tax incentives 
for savings should result in substantial increases in savings due to 
increases in the net return. See, for example, Lawrence H. Summers, 
``Capital Taxation and Accumulation in a Life Cycle Growth Model,'' 
American Economic Review, 71, September 1981. The staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation noted in its description of Present Law and 
Background Relating to Tax Incentives for Savings prepared for the 
Finance Committee hearing (JCX-7-99), there are many reasons for this 
increase in savings due to increased limits, including the 
psychological incentives to save and the increased advertising by banks 
and other financial institutions of tax-benefitted savings vehicles may 
influence people's savings decisions.
  Increase other dollar-based benefit limitations. Currently, the 
maximum pre-tax contribution to a 401(k) plan or a 403(b) annuity is 
$10,000. In addition, the maximum contribution to a 457(b) plan (a 
salary deferral plan for employees of government and tax exempt 
organizations) is $8,000. Finally, the maximum contribution to a SIMPLE 
plan (a simplified defined contribution plan available only to small 
employers) is $6,000. These limits are indexed for cost of living 
increases. There has traditionally been a differential in contribution 
limits among the various types of plans: IRAs (which are individual 
plans) having the lowest limits; SIMPLE plans having a greater limit--
but not as much as a 401(k) plan; and 401(k) and 403(b) plans having 
the highest limits, but the greatest number of regulations. Since the 
IRA limit will be raised to $5,000, the bill will increase limits for 
401(k) and 403(b) plans to $15,000 and for SIMPLE plans to $10,000; 
thereby continuing the differential. The limit for 457(b) plans for 
government employees will increase to $12,000.
  As stated before, there is a clear need to increase the IRA limit 
above the current $2,000 contribution level. But increasing that level 
without increasing the savings opportunity levels for employer provided 
plans will result in some business owners eliminating their employer 
provided plans and saving only for themselves in an IRA. By increasing 
the employer provided plan limits, business owners will still have the 
incentive to maintain a plan for employees if only to avail themselves 
of the higher plan limits for employer provided plans.
  This does not mean that business executives can automatically take 
advantage of these higher contribution limits. First, it is important 
to remember that contributions can only be made on the first $160,000 
of compensation. In addition, in order for a business owner or other 
highly compensated employee to take advantage of these limits, a number 
of non-highly compensated employees must also benefit under the plan. 
An example should show how these non-discrimination rules work. In a 
company, there is one person--let's say the owner of the business--who 
makes over $160,000 and that person wants to contribute the full 
$15,000 to the company 401(k) plan. He could only contribute the full 
$15,000 if (i) low paid employees as a group contribute 8% of their 
compensation to the 401(k) plan, (ii) all low paid employees receive a 
fully vested contribution from the employer equal to 3% of their 
compensation or (iii) all low paid employees would be eligible to 
receive matching contributions of 100% of their contribution to the 
401(k) plan of their first 3% contribution and 50% of their next 2% of 
compensation contribution. Clearly, business owners and high paid 
employees cannot benefit with this new higher contribution limits 
unless the amount of savings that low paid people make--either on their 
own or with the help of the employer--increases.
  Roth 401(k) or 403(b) plan. We have heard testimony before the 
Finance Committee that the results of the first year of the Roth IRA 
has been successful. And we have all seen the television and print ads 
touting the benefits of the Roth IRA. The opportunity for tax-free 
investment returns has clearly caught the fancy of the American people. 
In less than five months after the Roth IRA became available, the 
Investment Company Institute estimated that approximately 3 percent of 
American households owned a Roth IRA. In addition, the survey found 
that the typical Roth IRA owner was 37 years old, significantly younger 
than the traditional IRA owner who is about 50 years old, and that 30 
percent of Roth IRA owners indicated that the Roth IRA was the first 
IRA they had ever owned. This bill will harness the power of the Roth 
IRA and give it to participants in 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans.
  Companies will have the opportunity to give participants in 401(k) 
plans and 403(b) plans the ability to contribute to these plans on an 
after-tax basis, with the earnings on such contributions being tax-free 
when distributed, like the Roth IRA. More than the maximum Roth IRA 
contribution amount can be contributed under this option; employees 
would be limited to the maximum 401(k) or 403(b) contribution amount. 
The regular non-discrimination rules that apply to 401(k) and 403(b) 
plans will also apply to these after-tax contributions. Consequently, 
in order for business owners and highly compensated employees to take 
full advantage of these new savings opportunities, low paid employees 
must also benefit.
  The regular distribution rules (rather than the Roth IRA distribution 
rules) would apply to these types of plans. However, these after-tax 
accounts could be rolled into a Roth IRA when the individual retires. 
And unlike Roth IRAs, there would not be an opportunity for 401(k) or 
403(b) plan participant to convert their current 401(k) and 403(b) 
account balances into the new non-taxable balances.
  Catch-up contributions. This provision will provide an additional 
savings opportunity to those individuals who are close to retirement. 
According to a study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, older 
workers tend to have their contributions constrained by maximum limits 
which are either plan limits on how much can be contributed or legal 
limits on how much can be contributed. EBRI believes that this is 
probably due to the fact that they are more focused on retirement and 
are thus more likely to contribute at a higher level. We all know that 
there can be other pressing financial

[[Page 4797]]

needs earlier in life--school loans, home loans, taking time off to 
raise the kids--which limit the amount that we may have available to 
save for retirement. The closer that we get to retirement, the more we 
want to put away for those years when we are not working. However, the 
current law limitations on how much may be contributed to tax qualified 
savings vehicles may restrict people's ability to save at this time in 
their lives.
  The bill will give those who are near retirement--age 50--the 
opportunity to contribute an additional amount in excess of the annual 
limits equal to an additional 50% of the annual limit. Catch-up 
contributions will be allowed in 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) 
plans and IRAs. For IRAs, this will mean that someone age 50 could 
contribute $7,500 each year rather than $5,000.
  For employer provided plans, the catch contribution will be available 
to anyone who is age 50 or above and who is limited in the amount that 
he or she can contribute to the plan by a plan limit, the maximum 
contribution limit or the nondiscrimination rules that apply to highly 
paid employees. This additional catch-up contributions to employer 
provided plan will not be subject to the normal non-discrimination 
rules for other contributions. Consequently, if a highly paid employee 
is limited by the nondiscrimination rules to only contributing $9,000 
to a 401(k) plan, the employee will be able to contribute an additional 
$7,500 annually in the years after he attains age 50. This way, an 
employee is able to make contributions to provide for his or her 
retirement security when he or she is best able to afford to make these 
contributions and not be limited because other younger employees do not 
make contributions.
  Small business incentives. According to the most recent Bureau of 
Labor Statistics figures, only 48 percent of employees in a small 
business are likely to be covered by any retirement plan, while 78 
percent of employees of large or medium size businesses are likely to 
be covered. Since employees of small businesses are less likely to be 
covered by a retirement plan, we needed to find incentives for small 
businesses to want to establish plans. This is an issue that Senator 
Baucus is particularly interested in and these small business 
incentives represent some of his ideas on how to expand the small 
business market for retirement plans. The bill will assist small 
businesses in establishing retirement plans in the following ways:
  Tax credit for start-up costs. A non-refundable tax credit of up to 
$500 would be available to small businesses with up to 100 employees to 
defray the administrative costs of establishing a new retirement plan. 
This credit would only be available for the first three years of 
operation of the plan. This credit could be carried back for one year 
or forward for 20 years (the general business credit carryover rules).
  Tax credit for contributions. A non-refundable tax credit equal to 
50% of employer contributions made on behalf of non-highly compensated 
employees would be available to small businesses with 50 or less 
employees during the first 5 years of a plan's operation. Only 
contributions of not more than 3% of compensation are eligible for the 
credit. This credit could be carried back for one year or forward for 
20 years.
  Small business defined benefit plan. This plan will provide employees 
of small businesses with a secure, fully portable, defined retirement 
benefit without imposing the complex rules and regulations of normal 
defined benefit plans. This plan, called the Savings Are For Everyone 
(SAFE) plan, will provide a fully vested benefit that is fully funded, 
using conservative actuarial assumptions. The benefit will be based on 
an employee's salary and years of service and could be structured so 
that years of service prior to the establishment of the plan can be 
used in determining the benefit--which helps older, long service 
employees. The SAFE plan is meant to complement the successful SIMPLE 
defined contribution plan that is available for small businesses.
  Elimination of 25 percent of compensation limitation. Currently, the 
maximum amount that can be contributed to a defined contribution plan 
on behalf of an individual participant is the lesser of $30,000 or 25 
percent of compensation. This includes both employee contribution and 
any matching contributions or profit sharing contributions made by the 
plan sponsor. This bill will eliminate the 25 percent of compensation 
limit, so that the maximum contribution that is made on behalf of any 
individual is $30,000. With the additional savings opportunities 
provided for all employees under this bill, it would be much more 
likely for employees--especially low paid employees--to exceed this 25 
percent of compensation limitation. This change will make sure that 
those employees will not be limited in fully providing for their 
retirement security, especially, if the employer also contributes 
toward the employee's retirement plan.
  Tax deduction for employee deferrals. Under current law, an employee 
pre-tax deferral is treated as employer contribution and is subject to 
the limits on how much an employer can take as a tax deduction on 
qualified plan contributions. With the increased amount of pre-tax 
savings that we anticipate employees will make after enactment of this 
bill, there is a concern that the maximum limit on deductible 
contributions will be reached. This bill will permit employer to fully 
deduct any employee pre-tax deferrals, without regard to the maximum 
limit on deductions. Other employer contributions to a plan, however, 
will continue to be subject to this deduction limitation.
  IRA contributions to an employer plan. The bill gives employers the 
opportunity to accept traditional IRA contributions as part of their 
regular employer plan. In addition, it gives employees the ability to 
have IRA contributions made directly to the employer-sponsored IRA as a 
payroll deduction. One advantage of using an employer plan as an IRA 
account is that the administrative costs in an employer plan are 
usually much less than the costs in a privately maintained plan. 
Another advantage is that contributions to the IRA will be made on a 
payroll deduction basis, which makes it more likely that the 
contributions will be made.
  Full funding limit increase. Defined benefit pension plans are also 
an important source of retirement income. Currently, amounts that can 
be deducted as contributions to a pension plan is limited to the lesser 
of the actuarial funding requirement amount or 150 percent of the 
current liability amount of the plan. The current liability amount does 
not take into account projected pension benefits. This 150 percent of 
current liability limitation is eliminated in this bill. This will 
result in better funded pension plans, since the artificial limitation 
of 150 percent of current liability no longer applies.
  Both Senator Baucus and I hope that other Senators will join us in 
this effort to increase savings opportunities for all working 
Americans.
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, 
Senator Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and fellow 
Montanan, in introducing this important bill. Mr. President, I have 
agreed to join Chairman Roth in introducing this bill for one reason--I 
believe we must increase the level of personal savings in our country.
  Personal savings have been on a precipitous decline during the last 2 
decades. Net personal savings have dropped from 9.3% of Gross Domestic 
Product in the 1970's to one-half of one percent in 1999. This is the 
lowest rate of personal savings since 1933. If we are to reverse this 
decline, and help Americans plan for their retirement years, we must 
create a culture of savings in our country.
  The Retirement Savings Opportunity Act is one piece of a much broader 
effort to reverse this trend. Another important part of this puzzle is 
represented by the package of regulatory reforms I have been working on 
with Senators Graham and Grassley, in a bill that will be introduced 
shortly. Yet another approach is represented by

[[Page 4798]]

the President's proposal to create Universal Savings Accounts for all 
working Americans. I support the President's commitment to dedicate a 
portion of our projected budget surpluses to helping Americans save for 
their retirement, though I am modifying his proposal to take advantage 
of our existing pension system and enhance it. All of these proposals, 
when taken together in a comprehensive package, will help Americans of 
all income levels save for the future.
  My particular concern is in pension coverage for small businesses and 
their employees. Less than one in every five Americans working for 
small businesses have access to pension plans through their workplace. 
This represents 40 million working Americans who do not have pension 
coverage. And since virtually all of the net new jobs being created in 
this country are being created by small businesses, their retirement 
security must not be neglected. We simply must make it easier for small 
businesses to start pension plans, and to provide pension coverage to 
their employees.
  I am particularly pleased with the small business incentives included 
in the Retirement Savings Opportunity Act. This bill contains a tax 
credit to help defray the administrative costs small businesses incur 
when they start up new pension plans. It also includes an additional 
tax credit as an incentive for small business owners who contribute 
money on behalf of their employees into new plans. Finally, the bill 
includes a new, simplified defined benefit plan for small businesses. 
These are not by any means the only ways we can help small businesses 
provide pensions for their workers, but they are a good start down that 
road. The increased limits that are included in the bill will also help 
this process by making it easier for employers to save, thus making it 
more likely they will also provide benefits to their lower paid 
workers.
  I am very excited that we are finally engaging in a public policy 
debate about retirement security. Only by elevating this debate to the 
highest levels will we be able to make the changes necessary to truly 
make the American dream a reality for everyone. We must help Americans 
make their Golden Years truly golden, so they can look forward to a 
secure financial future. This bill, as part of a comprehensive solution 
that includes other proposals directed toward lower-income workers, 
will help make retirement security a reality for all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham)
  S. 647. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
district judges in the State of Florida, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               THE FLORIDA FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 1999

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today with 
my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Graham, to introduce the 
Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1999. I would not be here today if I 
did not wholeheartedly believe that the problem facing the court system 
in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida is one of the most 
acute judgeship problems in the nation. If judicial resources are not 
increased in these two districts, the problem will become irreversible. 
Mr. President, the situation that presently exists in Florida rises to 
the level of an emergency and thus, the problem needs attention today.
  The legislation that Senator Graham and I are introducing would 
create seven new judgeships for the state of Florida. The Middle 
District would receive five new permanent judgeships, and the Southern 
District would receive two new permanent judgeships. These numbers were 
officially recommended by the United States Judicial Conference earlier 
this week.
  The Middle District of Florida is nearly 400 miles, spanning from the 
Georgia border on the northeast side to the south of Naples on the 
southwest coast of Florida. This district includes, among others, the 
cities of Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. The Southern District 
encompasses Ft. Lauderdale and Miami, along with other cities in the 
southern portion of the state.
  Additional judgeship positions have not been created for these 
districts since 1990. Since this time, the Middle District alone has 
had a 62 percent increase in the total number of cases filed. Moreover, 
Florida's population has increased nearly twice as fast as the nation 
during the 1990s. By 2025, the United States Census Bureau projects 
Florida will surpass New York as the third largest state with 20.7 
million residents.
  Each year, Florida becomes a winter home to people from all over the 
United States and the world. In addition, the Middle and Southern 
Districts are home to major tourist attractions such as Disney World, 
Universal Studios, Sea World, Busch Gardens, and South Beach. The heavy 
flow of both winter residents and tourism, along with Florida's growing 
number of permanent residents, causes the needs of these two judicial 
districts to be unique in this nation.
  In addition, the Middle District contains the federal correctional 
center at Coleman. When the penitentiary is completed in Spring 2001, 
this will be one of the largest prison complexes in the country and the 
largest in the state of Florida. The capacity at Coleman will be 
approximately 4,700 inmates and all complaints filed by these prisoners 
regarding the facilities and their individual care will be sent to the 
Middle District for resolution.
  To add to the problem, a portion of the Middle District has been 
designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. While I am pleased 
that Florida will be receiving additional assistance in the war against 
drugs, we also must recognize that this law enforcement initiative is 
expected to dramatically impact narcotic related arrests and therefore, 
prosecutions in the Middle District.
  Thus, it is apparent that without the addition of new judges, access 
to justice will no longer be swift in the Middle and Southern 
Districts. To provide Floridians with a safe environment and access to 
justice, a court system must be put in place which can handle the 
demands of this dynamic and growing part of our country. Accordingly, I 
urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider and pass 
this legislation expeditiously.
 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with 
my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, in introducing 
the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1999. This legislation will create 
seven additional U.S. District Court judgeships in Florida--two in the 
Southern District and five--in the fast-growing Middle District of 
Florida.
  I want to thank Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, for his recognition of the overcrowding problem facing 
Florida's federal district courts and for his good-faith pledge to work 
with Senator Grassley to consider this issue early this year. I look 
forward to working with all my Senate colleagues in considering this 
important issue.
  Because our number of judgeships is too small to meet the increasing 
demand of Florida's rapidly growing population, judges face 
overwhelming caseloads. Prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel are 
stymied in their efforts to mete out swift justice. Civil litigants are 
forced to endure unreasonable waits to bring their cases to resolution.
  Mr. President, make no mistake: Florida's federal courts are in the 
midst of a full-blown crisis. Prominent legal and judicial officials 
all over Florida have told us that this is not a tenable situation. But 
Floridians are not alone in their concern about overcrowded court 
dockets in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida. Yesterday, 
March 16th, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the principal 
policy-making body of the federal judiciary, which is chaired by the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and composed of federal judges from 
throughout the United States--asked Congress to create 33 permanent and 
25 temporary additional district judgeships. Senator Mack and I are 
introducing our bill so that Congress can meet the needs of Florida by 
providing the additional judicial resources needed for

[[Page 4799]]

these two U.S. District Courts to meet their increasing caseload.
  On three previous occasions since 1976, Congress has authorized new 
Federal judgeships in numbers that each time exceeded the request of 
the Judicial Conference thus recognizing the dire needs of our court 
systems. The last recommendation, made in March of 1997, followed 
recommendations that were unheeded in September of 1992 and September 
of 1994. There have simply been no new judgeships since December 1, 
1990. We cannot allow this new request to go unheeded again.
  Mr. President, many states have justifiable concerns about 
overcrowded federal district court dockets. However the urgent nature 
of Florida's judicial crisis makes our state a special case. Its 
Southern and Middle Districts deserve immediate attention for three 
main reasons.
  First, Florida has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the 
nation, a condition that has continued to worsen over the last year. 
Currently, the Judicial Conference has proposed all recommendations for 
increased judgeship based on weighted filings--a number that takes into 
account both the total number of cases filed per judge and the average 
level of case complexity. Currently the standard for each Federal 
district judge is 430 weighted cases per year. When the caseload 
exceeds 430, that district is entitled to be reviewed for purposes of 
an additional judge.
  As of September 30, 1998, the Southern District's weighted filings 
stood at 608 per judge. This is 41 percent above the standard and 18 
percent above the national average of 516 weighted filing per judge. In 
the Middle District, the story was even worse--805 weighted filings per 
judge, a figure that ranks sixth highest in the entire nation. Middle 
District's weighted filings per judge from September 1996 to September 
1998, a two year period, jumped from 45 percent above the standard to 
87 percent above the standard and 56 percent above the national 
average.
  As of January 30, 1999, over 1,100 criminal defendants have cases 
pending in the Middle District. The story is even worse on the civil 
side of the docket, where more than 5,900 cases have yet to receive 
final disposition. Florida's caseload isn't going to experience a 
slowdown in growth anytime soon, and the judicial backlog will get 
worse unless Congress takes preventative action for the long-term.
  Second, this legislation recognizes that Florida's largest federal 
judicial districts are responsible for a massive area that includes 
nearly 80 percent of Florida residents. Last year the state's 
population reached 15 million, growing 15.9 percent since the 1990 
census of 12.9 million. The Southern and Middle Districts combined 
jurisdiction stretches from key West--the southernmost city in the 
continental United States--north to include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West 
Palm Beach, Melbourne, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, St. Petersburg, 
Orlando, and Jacksonville.
  Between 1980 and 1995, the Middle District grew by a whopping 52%. It 
is expected to increase by an additional 21% in the next decade. 
However, since 1990, the last time the Judicial Conference recommended 
and Congress approved more judges for Florida, our U.S. District Courts 
have not received any additional resources from the federal government 
to cope with that growth.
  Third, this proposal will assist the work of law enforcement 
officials and personnel. If we are committed to ensuring that criminals 
face punishment in a swift manner, we must be willing to provide 
resources to all aspects of the judicial system.
  In both of these districts, drug prosecutions and other serious 
criminal cases make up a large percentage of the overall caseload. For 
example, both the Southern and Middle Districts contain High intensity 
Drug Trafficking Areas (HITDAs). These anti-drug zones generate a 
substantial number of lengthy, multi-defendant prosecutions, and the 
additional judges will help law enforcement officials and prosecutors 
in their fight against drug crimes.
  In addition, federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials 
throughout Florida, but especially in the Southern District, are being 
forced to spend more time combatting the cheats, fly-by-night 
operators, and other criminals who are engaged in a systematic campaign 
to defraud Medicare and other health care programs. It has been 
estimated that nearly twenty percent of all Medicare dollars spent in 
South Florida are lost to fraud. In fact, nearly 30 percent of all 
Medicare fraud nationwide takes place in Florida.
  Mr. President, it is vital that we act quickly to resolve this 
crisis. From 1990, in Middle District, and 1993, in Southern District, 
the total number of filings have gone up 62 percent. With a state 
population growth rate predicted to exceed 300,000 residents per year, 
these trends are unlikely to reverse. The addition of these judgeships 
will still leave both districts well above the weighted filings per 
judgeship standard.
  U.S. Federal District Courts are the first stop for all citizens 
involved in the federal judicial system. Most federal cases are 
disposed at this level and it is essential that these citizens have 
their claims heard in a timely manner. Congress and the White House 
must be vigilant in their shared responsibility for recommending, 
nominating, and confirming federal judicial nominees. Senator Hatch's 
leadership, and his determination to address Florida's special needs, 
are very much appreciated by the residents of our state.
  Our legislation is simple, sound, and will serve the interests of all 
Floridians. I look forward to working with Senator Mack and members of 
the Judiciary Committee on this matter. I urge all my colleagues to 
support the passage of this much needed legislation. Further delay in 
this matter will only serve to deny timely justice for thousands of 
crime victims and civil litigants in Florida's Southern and Middle 
Judicial Districts.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I have received from Chief 
Judge Edward B. Davis of the Southern District of Florida be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     United States District Court,


                                 Southern District of Florida,

                                     Miami, FL, February 23, 1999.
     Hon. D. Robert Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to reaffirm our need for 
     the two additional judgeships this court has been seeking 
     since 1995. The Judicial Conference approved that request in 
     1996 and reaffirmed it in 1998. It did so based on the 
     weighted filings per judgeship. During the last three years, 
     the weighted filings per judgeship have averaged 601 which is 
     171 filings above the standard of 430 per judgeship.
       The Conference Committee on Judicial Statistics again 
     analyzed the Judiciary's judgeship needs last year and again 
     recommended to the Judicial Conference the two additional 
     judgeships. The following are the highlights of that 
     analysis:
       Since 1993, filings have increased by more than 50%. Most 
     of the increase has been in civil cases which have risen 62 
     percent;
       Prisoner petitions have nearly doubled since 1993;
       Criminal filings have fluctuated over the last five years, 
     growing to a high of 102 per judgeship in 1996 (this figure 
     will be even higher in the present statistical year based on 
     current trends);
       The heavy criminal caseload is reflected in both the 
     weighted filings and the number of lengthy trials;
       Over the last three years, the Court has averaged 34 trials 
     per year in excess of 10 days, with an average of 9 in excess 
     of 20 days (almost 10% of the Federal Judiciary's total);
       With the addition of two judgeships, the Court's weighted 
     filings per judgeship would only fall to approximately 520, 
     still well above the standard of 430.
       I also note that in the Southern District we: had 57% more 
     criminal trials than the next highest district (Central 
     California) in the federal system; and had more criminal 
     cases pending in 1998 in the Southern District than in 92 
     other federal district courts and in the entire 1st and 7th 
     Circuits.
       Despite your incredible assistance in filing our judicial 
     vacancies, we have not had a full complement of Judges since 
     October of 1988. I think the ongoing impact of the vacancies 
     and the above data continues to support this Court's need for 
     the two additional judgeships that were requested in 1995 as 
     part of the 1996 Biennial Judgeship Survey.
       If you have any questions or need additional information, 
     please telephone me at (305) 523-5150.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward B. Davis,
                                              Chief Judge.

[[Page 4800]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 648. A bill to provide for the protection of employees providing 
air safety information; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


                     aviation safety protection act

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Aviation 
Safety Protection Act of 1999 with Senator Grassley to increase overall 
safety of the airline industry by establishing whistleblower protection 
for aviation workers. I am honored to work on this important issue with 
Senator Grassley, who has long been a leader on whistleblower 
legislation.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) properly protects both 
private and federal government employees who report health and safety 
violations from reprisal by their employers. However, because of a 
loophole, aviation employees are not covered by these protections. 
Flight attendants and other airline employees are in the best position 
to recognize breaches in safety regulations and can be the critical 
link in ensuring safer air travel. Currently, those employees who work 
for unscrupulous airlines face the possibility of harassment, negative 
disciplinary action, and even termination if they report violations.
  Aviation employees perform an important public service when they 
choose to report safety concerns. No employee should be put in the 
position of having to choose between his or her job and reporting 
violations that threaten the safety of passengers and crew. For that 
reason, we need a strong whistleblower law to protect aviation 
employees from retaliation by their employers when reporting incidents 
to federal authorities. Americans who travel on commercial airlines 
deserve the safeguards that exist when flight attendants and other 
airline employees can step forward to help federal authorities enforce 
safety laws.
  This bill would provide the necessary protections for aviation 
employees who provide safety violation information to federal 
authorities or testify about or assist in disclosure of safety 
violations. This legislation provides a Department of Labor complaint 
procedure for employees who experience employer reprisal for reporting 
such violations, and assures that there are strong enforcement and 
judicial review provisions for fair implementation of the protections.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of Representative Sherwood 
Boehlert, Republican from New York, and Representative James Clyburn, 
Democrat from South Carolina, who have introduced the companion bill in 
the House. I also want to thank the Administration for their support of 
this legislation.
  This bill will provide important protections to aviation workers and 
the general public. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join Senator Grassley and me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 648

       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 ``Aviation Safety Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDING AIR SAFETY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 421 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

     ``Sec. 42121. Protection of employees providing air safety 
       information

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Airline Employees.--No air 
     carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier may 
     discharge an employee of the air carrier or the contractor or 
     subcontractor of an air carrier or otherwise discriminate 
     against any such employee with respect to compensation, 
     terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the 
     employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the 
     employee)--
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide or cause to be provided, to the Federal Government 
     information relating to any violation or alleged violation of 
     any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any other law of 
     the United States;
       ``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file or 
     cause to be filed, a proceeding relating to any violation or 
     alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of 
     Federal law relating to air carrier safety under this 
     subtitle or any other law of the United States;
       ``(3) testified or will testify in such a proceeding; or
       ``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in such a proceeding.
       ``(b) Department of Labor Complaint Procedure.--
       ``(1) Filing and notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In accordance with this paragraph, a 
     person may file (or have a person file on behalf of that 
     person) a complaint with the Secretary of Labor if that 
     person believes that an air carrier or contractor or 
     subcontractor of an air carrier discharged or otherwise 
     discriminated against that person in violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(B) Requirements for filing complaints.--A complaint 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) may be filed not later than 
     90 days after an alleged violation occurs. The complaint 
     shall state the alleged violation.
       ``(C) Notification.--Upon receipt of a complaint submitted 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Labor shall notify 
     the air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor named in the 
     complaint and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration of the--
       ``(i) filing of the complaint;
       ``(ii) allegations contained in the complaint;
       ``(iii) substance of evidence supporting the complaint; and
       ``(iv) opportunities that are afforded to the air carrier, 
     contractor, or subcontractor under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Investigation; preliminary order.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Investigation.--Not later than 60 days after receipt 
     of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) and after affording 
     the person named in the complaint an opportunity to submit to 
     the Secretary of Labor a written response to the complaint 
     and an opportunity to meet with a representative of the 
     Secretary to present statements from witnesses, the Secretary 
     of Labor shall conduct an investigation and determine whether 
     there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has 
     merit and notify in writing the complainant and the person 
     alleged to have committed a violation of subsection (a) of 
     the Secretary's findings.
       ``(ii) Order.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if 
     the Secretary of Labor concludes that there is reasonable 
     cause to believe that a violation of subsection (a) has 
     occurred, the Secretary shall accompany the findings referred 
     to in clause (i) with a preliminary order providing the 
     relief prescribed under paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(iii) Objections.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of notification of findings under this paragraph, the person 
     alleged to have committed the violation or the complainant 
     may file objections to the findings or preliminary order and 
     request a hearing on the record.
       ``(iv) Effect of filing.--The filing of objections under 
     clause (iii) shall not operate to stay any reinstatement 
     remedy contained in the preliminary order.
       ``(v) Hearings.--Hearings conducted pursuant to a request 
     made under clause (iii) shall be conducted expeditiously and 
     governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If a 
     hearing is not requested during the 30-day period prescribed 
     in clause (iii), the preliminary order shall be deemed a 
     final order that is not subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Requirements.--
       ``(i) Required showing by complainant.--The Secretary of 
     Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection 
     and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required 
     under subparagraph (A) unless the complainant makes a prima 
     facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor in 
     the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(ii) Showing by employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by 
     the Secretary that the complainant has made the showing 
     required under clause (i), no investigation otherwise 
     required under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted if the 
     employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
     the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel 
     action in the absence of that behavior.
       ``(iii) Criteria for determination by secretary.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a violation of subsection (a) 
     has occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any 
     behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable 
     personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(iv) Prohibition.--Relief may not be ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the 
     same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that 
     behavior.

[[Page 4801]]

       ``(3) Final order.--
       ``(A) Deadline for issuance; settlement agreements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after conclusion 
     of a hearing under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor 
     shall issue a final order that--

       ``(I) provides relief in accordance with this paragraph; or
       ``(II) denies the complaint.

       ``(ii) Settlement agreement.--At any time before issuance 
     of a final order under this paragraph, a proceeding under 
     this subsection may be terminated on the basis of a 
     settlement agreement entered into by the Secretary of Labor, 
     the complainant, and the air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor alleged to have committed the violation.
       ``(B) Remedy.--If, in response to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall order the air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor that the Secretary of Labor determines to have 
     committed the violation to--
       ``(i) take action to abate the violation;
       ``(ii) reinstate the complainant to the former position of 
     the complainant and ensure the payment of compensation 
     (including back pay) and the restoration of terms, 
     conditions, and privileges associated with the employment; 
     and
       ``(iii) provide compensatory damages to the complainant.
       ``(C) Costs of complaint.--If the Secretary of Labor issues 
     a final order that provides for relief in accordance with 
     this paragraph, the Secretary of Labor, at the request of the 
     complainant, shall assess against the air carrier, 
     contractor, or subcontractor named in the order an amount 
     equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses 
     (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably 
     incurred by the complainant (as determined by the Secretary 
     of Labor) for, or in connection with, the bringing of the 
     complaint that resulted in the issuance of the order.
       ``(4) Frivolous complaints.--A complaint brought under this 
     section that is found to be frivolous or to have been brought 
     in bad faith shall be governed by Rule 11 of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(5) Review.--
       ``(A) Appeal to court of appeals.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 60 days after a final 
     order is issued under paragraph (3), a person adversely 
     affected or aggrieved by that order may obtain review of the 
     order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit 
     in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in 
     which the complainant resided on the date of that violation.
       ``(ii) Requirements for judicial review.--A review 
     conducted under this paragraph shall be conducted in 
     accordance with chapter 7 of title 5. The commencement of 
     proceedings under this subparagraph shall not, unless ordered 
     by the court, operate as a stay of the order that is the 
     subject of the review.
       ``(B) Limitation on collateral attack.--An order referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to judicial 
     review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
       ``(6) Enforcement of order by secretary of labor.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor named in an order issued under paragraph (3) 
     fails to comply with the order, the Secretary of Labor may 
     file a civil action in the United States district court for 
     the district in which the violation occurred to enforce that 
     order.
       ``(B) Relief.--In any action brought under this paragraph, 
     the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant any 
     appropriate form of relief, including injunctive relief and 
     compensatory damages.
       ``(7) Enforcement of order by parties.--
       ``(A) Commencement of action.--A person on whose behalf an 
     order is issued under paragraph (3) may commence a civil 
     action against the air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor 
     named in the order to require compliance with the order. The 
     appropriate United States district court shall have 
     jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or 
     the citizenship of the parties, to enforce the order.
       ``(B) Attorney fees.--In issuing any final order under this 
     paragraph, the court may award costs of litigation (including 
     reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party if 
     the court determines that the awarding of those costs is 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Mandamus.--Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this 
     section shall be enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought 
     under section 1361 of title 28.
       ``(d) Nonapplicability To Deliberate Violations.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of 
     an air carrier, or contractor or subcontractor of an air 
     carrier who, acting without direction from the air carrier 
     (or an agent, contractor, or subcontractor of the air 
     carrier), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement 
     relating to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any 
     other law of the United States.
       ``(e) Contractor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `contractor' means a company that performs safety-sensitive 
     functions by contract for an air carrier.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 421 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

``42121. Protection of employees providing air safety information.

       (c) Civil Penalty.--Section 46301(a)(1)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``subchapter II of 
     chapter 421,'' and inserting ``subchapter II or III of 
     chapter 421,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 653. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to further protect the safety and health of employees; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                      safer workplaces act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 654. A bill to strengthen the rights of workers to associate, 
organize and strike, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     right-to-organize act of 1999

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two 
pieces of legislation that I believe would represent a giant step 
forward for working Americans. The first bill, which I am calling the 
``Safer Workplaces Act of 1999,'' contains four provisions that would 
extend health and safety protections for workers in the workplace. The 
second bill, the ``Right to Organize Act of 1999,'' would go a long way 
toward correcting some of the flagrant abuses of the law that have 
resulted in workers being denied their right to organize and bargain 
collectively.


                    The Safer Workplaces Act of 1999

  In recent years some of my colleagues have argued that the 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act already goes too far in 
protecting the right of employees to work in a safe and healthy 
environment. I have a different view. I believe that, in several 
fundamental ways, the OSH Act does not go far enough.
  There are still too many workers injured on the job in America today. 
There are still too many tragic cases of workers losing their lives 
because their employers deliberately chose to break the law. When 
workers go to work in the morning, they have every right to expect that 
they'll come home at night in one piece--not maimed or killed on the 
job because of their employer's wrongdoing. I don't think that's a lot 
to ask.
  Of course it's not. In fact, I know many of my Republican friends 
couldn't agree more. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. 
The four provisions of my ``Safer Workplaces Act,'' which I am also 
introducing individually as separate legislation, have all enjoyed 
bipartisan support in the past. I don't see any reason why they 
shouldn't enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, as well. I hope we 
can sidestep some of the more bitter controversies surrounding the OSH 
Act and focus instead on meaningful changes that will make a real 
difference in the lives of American workers.
  The first provision in my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am 
introducing separately as the ``Safety and Health Whistleblowers 
Protection Act,'' would encourage employees to step forward and 
identify hazards in the workplace without fear of retaliation from 
their employers. In theory, workers are already protected from 
retaliation under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, but we know that this 
protection is all too often meaningless. As Assistant Secretary of 
Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified before the Employment, 
Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``The provisions in place today in 
Section 11(c) of the Act are too weak and too cumbersome to discourage 
employer retaliation or to provide an effective remedy for the victims 
of retaliation.''
  Many, if not most, employees are simply afraid that they'll be 
punished or fired if they complain. And they have every reason to be 
afraid. In 1997 the Labor Department's Inspector General, Charles C. 
Masten, concluded that

       Workers, particularly with small companies, are vulnerable
       to reprisals by their employers for complaining about

[[Page 4802]]

       unsafe, unhealthy work conditions. The severity of the
       discrimination is highlighted by the fact that for 653 
     cases
       included in our sample, nearly 67 percent of the workers 
     who
       filed complaints were terminated from their jobs.

The IG further found that workers who complain to their employer 
first--rather than to OSHA--are particularly vulnerable; that workers 
in small firms are the most vulnerable; that employer retaliation is 
often severe, most frequently in the form of firing; that OSHA 
procedures to investigate complaints are inadequate; that there are 
significant delays in OSHA's decisionmaking in 11(c) cases; and that 
the Department is failing to seek effective remedies for employees.
  GAO reached similar conclusions. Of the Compliance Safety and Health 
Officers (CSHOs) surveyed by GAO, 26 percent thought workers have 
little or no protection when they report violations to OSHA. According 
to almost 50 percent of these officers, workers themselves believe they 
have little or no protection. But only 10 percent thought workers faced 
no real danger of retaliation.
  When employees are too intimidated to identify workplace dangers, we 
end up with workplaces that are more dangerous than they should be. The 
Labor Department Inspector General concluded that, ``Based on the 
worker termination rates in the 11(c) cases, many employers are not 
receptive to requests for abatement of workplace hazards and feel free 
to discipline workers who seek abatement.'' So hazards go unreported 
and more workers get injured or killed.
  The problems with Section 11(c) are widely acknowledged. In the 103rd 
Congress, the House Education and Labor Committee issued a stinging 
critique of current law, and many of its criticisms were echoed by OSHA 
itself in 1998. These are some of the shortcomings they identified. 
There's too little time for workers to file a complaint, since many 
don't even learn of their legal rights within 30 days of retaliation. 
There's no protection for employees who refuse to work when they have 
good reason to think they're in danger. Workers have to rely on the 
Department to take their cases to court, and there are no real time 
limits for doing that. While their cases are pending, workers have no 
job and no paycheck. And there are no penalties for employers who 
retaliate against workers.
  My legislation is designed to correct these flaws. It gives workers 6 
months, rather than 30 days, to file a grievance for retaliation. It 
protects not only workers who report unsafe conditions, but also 
employees who refuse to work when they have good reason to think they 
might be harmed or injured. To expedite the process, my bill provides 
for prompt hearings before an administrative law judge. It would allow 
dissatisfied workers to then take their case to a federal appeals court 
themselves, not having to rely on the Department. And it would provide 
for reinstatement during these proceedings, as well as compensatory 
damages and exemplary damages when the employer's behavior has been 
particularly outrageous.
  These common-sense improvements should not be contentious or 
controversial. In fact, a bipartisan consensus has already emerged in 
support of similar whistleblower reforms. In July 1988, Reagan 
Administration Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin recommended 
legislation allowing airline employees to refuse work when they have a 
reasonable belief that they might be injured or killed, as well as 
providing a six month grievance filing period, hearings before an 
administrative law judge, and a temporary reinstatement remedy. Labor 
Secretary Elizabeth Dole agreed that ``limitation periods shorter than 
180 days have proved too short for effective protection of 
whistleblower rights.''
  In 1989 President Bush said that reinstatement must be available for 
whistleblowers in cases involving waste, fraud, and abuse because 
``Standard make-whole remedies * * * will be meaningless, in practice, 
if whistleblowers are crushed personally and financially while 
legitimate complaints are caught in procedural limbo.'' In 1991, Gerard 
Scannell, Assistant Secretary for OSHA under President Bush, testified 
that ``we know there is a need to improve whistleblower protection and 
we have been working closely with the Congress on this issue.''
  In the 104th Congress, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger 
introduced an OSHA reform bill that would have strengthened 
whistleblower protections by lengthening the grievance filing period 
from 30 to 60 days, and by giving employees the right to take their 
cases to court if the Labor Department refuses to act.
  Republicans and Democrats agree that Section 11(c) is woefully 
inadequate and cries out for immediate reform. To ensure a safe and 
healthy work environment for all workers, we must count on employees to 
actively participate in identifying and correcting workplace hazards. 
But they're not going to do that if it means putting their jobs on the 
line. It's that simple. These courageous individuals need more 
protection, not less, and that's what my legislation is all about.
  The second provision of my Safer Workplaces Act, which I am 
introducing separately as the ``Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' 
would make it a felony to commit willful violations of the OSH Act that 
result in death of an employee. Unbelievably, these criminal violations 
are only a misdemeanor under current law. Under virtually every other 
federal safety and health or environmental statute, by contrast, 
criminal violations are a felony.
  Because the penalty is so insignificant, the Justice Department 
rarely prosecutes. There are not a lot of cases where willful 
violations lead to the death of an employee, but some of them involve 
egregious behavior that needs to be prosecuted. We need to send a 
message. Employers who cause the death of their employees by 
deliberately violating the law should be held accountable with 
something more than a slap on the wrist.
  Before a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training 
Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified, 
``We would urge that these violations not be classified as 
misdemeanors, but felonies, which carry with them the possibility of 
incarceration for periods in excess of one year. Classifying willful 
workplace safety and health violations that lead to an employee's death 
as misdemeanors is woefully inadequate to address the harm caused. 
Classifying such crimes as felonies would more justly reflect the 
severity of the offense.''
  This is another reform that has enjoyed bipartisan support in the 
past, and deserves bipartisan support in this Congress. In 1990 the 
Bush Administration testified in support of making these criminal 
violations felonies. Several Republicans on the Labor Committee--Brock 
Adams, Jim Jeffords, and David Durenberger--all supported such 
legislation.
  The third provision of the Safer Workplaces Act, which I am 
introducing separately as the ``Federal Employees Safety Enhancement 
Act,'' would extend full OSHA protections to employees of the federal 
government. Federal employees have been excluded from OSHA coverage for 
almost 30 years. While a 1980 executive order required federal agencies 
to comply with OSHA standards, it provides no real enforcement 
authority.
  As Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress recently testified 
before the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee, ``the OSH Act 
currently does not adequately protect Federal employees. *  *  * OSHA 
has little ability to require positive change on the part of public 
employees. As a consequence, this limited authority hinders OSHA's 
success in reducing illness, injuries, and fatalities on the job.''
  Again, this is a common-sense reform that should be bipartisan and 
uncontroversial. In 1994, Republican Congressman Cass Ballenger 
proposed to cover federal employees in his OSHA reform legislation. 
Last year, under the leadership of Senator Enzi, the Senate voted 
unanimously to extend OSHA coverage to the U.S. Postal

[[Page 4803]]

Service. On introducing his Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 
1998, Republican Senator Enzi indicated that all federal employees 
should ultimately be covered: ``This important legislation is an 
incremental step in the effort to ensure that the `law of the land' 
applies equally to all branches of government as well as the private 
sector--and everything in-between.''
  Finally, my Safer Workplace Act would also extend OSHA protections to 
employees of state and local government. State and local public 
employees are now covered only if their state happens to have a state 
plan. But in 27 states that do not have a state plan, 8.1 million state 
and local public employees are not protected by OSHA.
  There's no reason why these employees should be treated as second-
class citizens. They face workplace hazards just like workers in the 
private sector, sometimes more. Their health and their lives are just 
as much at risk as those of private sector workers. In fact, in 1997, 
624 public sector workers were killed on the job. In several states, 
the injury rate is higher for public employees than for private sector 
employees.
  At a recent hearing of the Employment, Safety, and Training 
Subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified. 
``There are numerous examples of on-the-job tragedies that occurred 
primarily because safety and health protections do not apply to public 
employees. These tragedies could have been prevented by compliance with 
OSHA rules.''
  Once again, this is a common-sense, bipartisan proposal. The Bush 
Administration supported OSHA coverage for state and local public 
employees in 1991. I understand there is interest on the other side of 
the aisle in this particular provision, and I welcome it.
  Taken together, the four provisions in this legislation would make a 
real difference for American workers. Fewer of them would be exposed to 
workplace hazards, fewer would be injured or harmed on the job, and 
fewer would be forced to pay with their lives. The Safer Workplaces Act 
would encourage employees to be involved in identifying workplace 
hazards and correcting them before tragedy occurs. It would deter 
employers from putting their employees lives' in danger through 
deliberate violations of the law. And it would give federal employees 
and state and local public employees the same health and safety 
protections that workers in the private sector have long enjoyed. This 
is a sensible package of bipartisan reforms, and I would encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this 
legislation in the 106th Congress.


                   The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999

  As Ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
(HELP) subcommittee with jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA), I am also introducing legislation that would more fully 
recognize the right of American working men and women to organize and 
bargain collectively.
  Workers across America who want to organize a union and bargain 
collectively with their employer are finding that the rules are stacked 
against them in crucial ways. This is clear to any labor organizer, and 
to many workers who have made the effort. To give workers a fair chance 
to organize and bargain collectively, we need fundamental labor law 
reform.
  My ``Right-to-Organize Act of 1999'' will target some of the worst 
abuses of labor law that have become increasingly common in recent 
years. First, employees are being subject to flagrant coercion, 
intimidation, and interference during certification election campaigns. 
Second, employers are simply firing employees who attempt to organize a 
union, and they're doing so with virtual impunity. In fact, despite the 
fact that the NLRA prohibits firing of employees for trying to organize 
a union, as many as 10,000 Americans lose their jobs each year for 
doing just that. The 1994 Dunlop Commission found that one in four 
employers illegally fired union activists during organizing campaigns. 
And third, there is a growing problem of employers refusing to bargain 
with their employees even after a union has been certified.
  The Right-to-Organize Act of 1999 tackles these problems with the 
following provisions:
  First, it would help employees make fully informed, free decisions 
about union representation by providing labor representatives and 
management equal opportunity to disseminate information to employees.
  Second, it would expand the remedies available for employees who are 
wrongfully discharged--for union organizing, for example. Specifically, 
it would expand the remedies available to the National Labor Relations 
Board to include three times back pay, and it would allow employees to 
recover punitive damages in district court when the Board has 
determined that they were wrongfully discharged.
  Third, if protecting the right to join a union and bargain 
collectively is to have any meaning, there must be safeguards to ensure 
that newly certified unions have a reasonable opportunity to reach an 
agreement with their employer. My legislation would provide for 
mediation and arbitration when employers and employees fail to reach a 
collective bargaining agreement on their own within 60 days of a 
union's certification.
  While these provisions are all much-needed to level the playing 
field, I am the first to admit that much more still needs to be done. 
This legislation is very much a work in progress. I will be considering 
additional provisions to strengthen the authority of the National Labor 
Relations Board's (NLRB) to sanction willful violations of the law and 
to prevent abuses that too often string out election campaigns for 
months and months while worker representatives are thoroughly 
intimidated, organizers are fired, and the organizing campaign dies an 
early death.
  I believe very strongly that the Right to Organize is terribly 
important--not only for the workers who want to join together and 
bargain collectively, but for all Americans. One of the most important 
things we can do to raise the standard of living and quality of life 
for working Americans, raise wages and benefits, improve health and 
safety in the workplace, and give average Americans more control over 
their lives is to enforce their right to organize, join, and belong to 
a union. We know that union workers are able to earn up to one-third 
more than non-union workers and are more likely to have pensions and 
health benefits. That's why more than four in ten workers who are not 
currently in a union say they would join one if they had the chance.
  When workers join together to fight for job security, for dignity, 
for economic justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it 
is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized 
workers on basic bread-and-butter issues are key to the economic 
security of all working families. Upholding the Right to Organize is a 
way to advance important social objectives--higher wages, better 
benefits, more pension coverage, more worker training, more health 
insurance coverage, and safer workplaces--without drawing on any 
additional government resources.
  I believe that the Right to Organize is one of the most important 
civil rights and human rights causes of the 1990s. Unfortunately, this 
cause has received too little attention in this Congress. I hope I can 
do something to remedy that situation, but this legislation is only a 
first step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Frist, Mr. Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. 
        Grams):
  S. 655. A bill to establish nationally uniform requirements regarding 
the titling and registration of salvage, nonrepairable, and rebuilt 
vehicles; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


     national salvage motor vehicle consumer protection act of 1999

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to combat 
the growing and costly fraud of title washing. Title fraud is a 
deceptive practice

[[Page 4804]]

that costs consumers more than $4 billion dollars annually and places 
millions of structurally defective vehicles back on America's roads and 
highways. These are millions of unsafe cars and trucks sharing the 
roads with your loved ones.
  The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act encourages 
states to adopt uniform titling and registration standards to protect 
used car buyers from unknowingly purchasing totaled and subsequently 
rebuilt vehicles. It is a sound and reasonable measure that enhances 
consumer disclosure and aids state motor vehicle administrators 
throughout the nation by giving them identical points of reference to 
describe salvage vehicles.
  Let us be very clear on this, there are no uniform definitions and 
standards in place today and this leads to a hodgepodge of disclosure 
approaches throughout the country. Unscrupulous automobile rebuilders 
take advantage of inconsistencies in state titling definitions and 
procedures to purchase damaged vehicles at a low cost, rebuild them, 
oftentimes by welding the front and back of two different cars 
together, and then retitling the vehicle in another state. The new 
``clean'' title bears no indication of the vehicle's previous damage 
record. As a result, consumers in your states are being sold previously 
totaled cars and trucks without having any knowledge that the vehicle 
they purchased, sometimes at a very high price, was severely damaged. A 
vehicle where only minor damage could cause it to fall apart. The 
unwitting purchasers of these vehicles experience significant economic 
loss. They and other motorists may also suffer bodily harm from these 
wrecks on wheels.
  Mr. President, the title branding bill offered today will promote 
greater disclosure to potential used car buyers than occurs today. It 
establishes uniform definitions for salvage, rebuilt salvage, 
nonrepairable, and flood vehicles based upon the recommendations of the 
Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee. 
This congressionally mandated task force, overseen by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, included the U.S. Attorney General's 
Criminal and Civil Justice Divisions, State motor vehicle officials, 
motor vehicle manufacturers, auto dealers, recyclers, insurers, salvage 
yard operators, scrap processors, the U.S. Treasury Department, police 
chiefs and municipal auto theft investigators, and other interested and 
affected parties. The uniform definitions and standards contained in 
this bill are theirs, not mine. Their recommendations are based on a 
wealth of day-to-day experience dealing with consumer fraud, vehicle 
titling, and automobile theft. The Salvage Advisory Committee's 
recommendations struck an appropriate balance between consumers' 
economic interests and their personal safety.
  The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act requires 
rebuilt salvage vehicles to undergo a theft inspection in addition to 
any required state safety inspection. To further promote disclosure to 
potential used car buyers, the legislation also requires rebuilt 
salvage vehicles to have a decal permanently fastened to the driver's 
doorjamb and a sticker would be affixed to the windshield disclosing 
the vehicle's status. Additionally, a written disclosure statement must 
be provided to buyers and the vehicle's title would be branded with the 
statement ``rebuilt salvage.''
  The bill also requires that the brands included on state vehicle 
titles be carried forward to each state where the vehicle is retitled.
  So if your state wants to add additional requirements--they can. And 
these items will be a permanent part of the title.
  In an effort to take aim at automobile theft, the bill requires the 
tracking of Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of irreparably damaged 
vehicles. This provision ensures that VINs are not simply swapped from 
damaged cars to stolen cars to mask their identity.
  Mr. President, Congress came very close to enacting title branding 
legislation last year. The original Senate measure received the formal 
bipartisan support of 57 Senators, and a similar bill passed the House 
of Representatives by a vote of 333 to 72. Throughout the legislative 
process, a number of significant changes were made to the bill to 
address the concerns expressed by consumer groups and some state 
attorneys general.
  The title branding bill before you today retains all of the changes 
approved by the House of Representatives last October and it includes 
additional pro-consumer, pro-states rights modifications received from 
states and the Administration.
  Under this revised bill, states are free to adopt disclosure 
standards beyond those provided for in the bill. Let me say again that 
nothing in this bill prohibits states from providing unlimited 
disclosure to their citizens. This important legislation merely creates 
a basic minimum national standard while giving participating states the 
flexibility to adopt more stringent provisions and additional 
disclosure requirements.
  The bill also does not create a federal mandate on the states as some 
big government advocates would have it. My colleagues are well aware 
that the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States [505 U.S. 144 
(1992)] that states cannot be forced by Congress to execute programs 
that should be administered by the U.S. government. In the New York 
decision, the Justices upheld ``access incentives'' which allow states 
to decide whether they want to use federal standards.
  This legislation follows the Supreme Court's ruling by offering 
incentive grants, as proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
to states that voluntarily choose to participate in the uniform titling 
regime for salvage vehicles. Thus, states that enact the bill's uniform 
titling definitions and procedures will be eligible for conformance 
funding. They can use the authorized funds to issue new titles, to 
establish and administer vehicle theft or safety inspections, for 
enforcement activities, and for other related purposes. While I believe 
most states will decide to participate in this completely voluntary 
program, rest assured no state will be penalized for choosing not to 
participate, or for adopting only some of the bill's provisions.
  I would also like to point out that the revised bill no longer links 
state adoption of uniform titling standards to the National Motor 
Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation. 
Again, there is no penalty for nonparticipation.
  The bill merely identifies and defines the minimum number of terms 
that should be used by states to characterize damaged vehicles. The use 
of nationally and consistently recognized terms will help consumers 
make informed decisions wherever they purchase a used vehicle. Whether 
in Mississippi, Utah, Florida, Montana, Texas, Virginia or any other 
participating state.
  Mr. President, let me tell our colleagues this bill is about a 
commission's recommendations. Quite frankly, I took the recommendations 
from a commission created by Congress and codified their ideas. The 
ideas of the experts. The ideas of all the stakeholders. As we all 
know, many commission reports gather dust. I do not want this one to 
gather dust because motorists could be driving used cars which are 
literally wrecks. This is the commission's bill and I am proud to be 
associated with its sponsorship.
  The bill fully adopts the federal task force's ``salvage'' vehicle 
definition as a vehicle that sustains damage in excess of 75% of its 
pre-accident value. This figure is lower than the House's proposal 
during the 105th Congress which would have set the uniform salvage 
threshold at 80%. The revised bill also gives states the flexibility to 
establish an even lower threshold if they choose. A state may set its 
salvage threshold at 70%, for example. The bill does not, however, set 
the uniform standard at an arbitrarily low minimum salvage threshold, 
such as 65%, when no state in the union currently has such a standard. 
No state. Not one.
  The bill defines a flood vehicle as one that suffers water damage 
that inhibits the electrical, computerized, or mechanical functions of 
the vehicle. This

[[Page 4805]]

definition expands upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee by 
taking into account real world experience. State's found that merely 
being exposed to water alone does not in and of itself threaten the 
structural integrity, safety, or value of a vehicle. A car or truck 
should not be branded a flood vehicle just because its carpeting and 
floor mats are wet. If it were the case, none of us would drive our 
cars through the rain or snow. It is only when water damage impairs a 
vehicle's operating functions and the electrical, mechanical or 
computerized components have not been repaired or replaced, that the 
vehicle should be classified as a flood vehicle. The revised bill also 
goes beyond the task force's recommendations by including any vehicle 
acquired by an insurer as part of a water damage settlement.
  A nonrepairable vehicle is one that is incapable of being driven 
safely and has no resale value except as a source for parts or scrap. 
This is similar to the nonrepairable definition used by California, our 
nation's largest state. This is also the common sense definition the 
Advisory Committee wisely chose in lieu of an arbitrary percentage 
based definition that would force otherwise repairable vehicles into 
the scrap heap. It should be noted that only five states have a 
percentage based nonrepairable definition. I find it troubling that 
these same five states have been far less successful in reducing 
automobile thefts than the nation as a whole and accident related 
deaths higher than the forty-five states that do not have a percentage 
based nonrepairable definition. Coupled with the negative economic 
effects on consumers, these are additional reasons not to adopt a 
percentage based definition for nonrepairable vehicles.
  Mr. President, my colleagues should also be aware that this 
legislation allows states to use additional terms in their titling 
regimes such as ``reconstructed'', ``unrebuildable'', and ``junk 
vehicles'' in addition to the terms defined in this measure. If a state 
that chooses to conform to the federal standard also wants to use a 
percentage based definition to describe a ``parts only'' vehicle, it 
can use a term synonymous to nonrepairable.
  The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act also 
allows states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. It allows older 
vehicles to be designated as a ``older model salvage vehicle.'' This is 
a change recommended by a state attorneys general representative to 
provide states with even more flexibility. Again, the age of a vehicle 
is no longer an issue under this revised title branding bill.
  This legislation even grants state attorneys general the ability to 
sue on behalf of consumers victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and to 
recover monetary judgments for damages that citizens may have suffered.
  Two new prohibited acts are included in the bill--one related to 
failure to make a flood disclosure and the other related to moving a 
vehicle or title across state lines for the purpose of avoiding the 
bill's requirements.
  Mr. President, I have just gone over a number of changes that I 
incorporated into the bill. I have reached out to accommodate a number 
of issues, but there is a point where making changes defeats the 
purpose of the bill which is to promote consumer disclosure through 
uniformity.
  Mr. President, this bill does nothing to inhibit a consumers ability 
to pursue private rights of actions available under state law. 
Moreover, states are free to continue or adopt new civil and criminal 
penalties against individuals or companies that defraud consumers. The 
bill does not, however, negatively impact the already overburdened 
Federal courts. This bill is about disclosure. If your son or daughter 
is buying a used car, you want them to know right up front whether the 
vehicle they are about to purchase has been severely damaged. Getting 
relief after several years of litigating in a U.S. Court does not 
protect consumers. It does not turn the clock back for someone who has 
been killed or seriously injured in a structurally unsafe vehicle.
  Mr. President, I would also like to reiterate some key points 
concerning The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act:
  State participation is completely voluntary. V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y.
  There is no preemption of state law. None whatsoever. None. None. 
None. State legislatures can fully enact the bill's provisions, enact 
only some of the uniform definitions and standards, or take no action 
whatsoever.
  States that choose to participate in the minimal uniform definitions 
and standards identified in this bill will be entitled to conformance 
funding.
  There is no penalty for non-participation by a state. None 
whatsoever. None. None. None. And, no linkage to state National Motor 
Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) funding or participation.
  It mirrors recommendations of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration 
and Salvage Advisory Committee.
  The bill's definitions and standards are the minimum necessary for a 
voluntary uniform salvage titling framework. M-I-N-I-M-U-M.
  This legislation does not force states to adopt standards or 
definitions that not even one state currently has in place.
  The bill does not unnecessarily devalue vehicles or cause otherwise 
repairable automobiles to be junked. This is key because some will talk 
about greater protection, but these proposals threaten the car's value 
for no good reason and this makes no sense
  The revised bill includes many additional technical corrections 
provided to me by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National 
Association of Attorney's General, and others. I want to personally 
thank them for their time and effort in going over the bill with me--
line by line. Their thoughts were invaluable and helpful. Throughout 
the legislative process, I have made several good faith efforts to 
reach out to all groups interested in this legislation and where 
possible, I included reasonable changes in the bill.
  It is widely supported by state motor vehicle administrators, law 
enforcement agencies, state legislators, consumers, and the automobile 
and insurance industries. Widely supported.
  Experts on the front lines, those who deal with titling issues 
everyday, have described other proposals that have been floated 
recently as confusing, or overly complex, or unworkable, or unwise, or 
counter productive. In many instances, these proposals have been flatly 
rejected by state legislatures.
  The National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act represents 
a fair, balanced, and workable approach to dealing with the issue of 
title fraud. It provides a voluntary framework for states to provide 
much needed disclosure to potential used-car purchasers. It would help 
close the many loopholes that exist in state titling rules. This 
measure maintains a state's ability to provide more disclosure, to take 
direct and timely action against dishonest parties, and to adopt more 
stringent rules and procedures should they decide to do so. It is both 
pro-consumer and pro-states rights. This bill protects the safety and 
well-being of consumers and motorists across America.
  I urge the more than fifty of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle who formally supported this title branding legislation during the 
last Congress to cosponsor this important bill again. I ask the rest of 
my colleagues also to protect their constituents by lending their 
support to this much needed consumer protection measure.
  The time has come for Congressional action. Repeated hearings have 
been held on this issue in both chambers over several years. The record 
is clear. Title fraud is a significant problem across the country. It 
continues unabated. The solution is more consumer disclosure based on 
the use of appropriate and rational national standards. This 
legislation is a win-win solution for consumers, states, and industry.
  You know the time has come for Congressional action when the 
Department of Transportation's crash test cars are rebuilt, title 
washed, and back on America's roads and highways. Remember, these are 
deliberately wrecked vehicles. Yes, the time has come for action.
  Let us work together to move this measure forward. To keep dishonest 
rebuilders from taking advantage of even

[[Page 4806]]

one more used car purchaser in your state.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 655

       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 ``National Salvage Motor 
     Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE TITLING AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Amendment to Title 49, United States Code.--Subtitle VI 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting a 
     new chapter at the end:

   ``CHAPTER 333--AUTOMOBILE SAFETY AND TITLE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

``Sec.
``33301. Definitions.
``33302. Passenger motor vehicle titling.
``33303. Disclosure and label requirements on transfer of rebuilt 
              salvage vehicles.
``33304. Report on funding.
``33305. Effect on State law.
``33306. Civil penalties.
``33307. Actions by States.
``33308. Incentive Grants.

     ``Sec. 33301. Definitions

       ``(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this chapter:
       ``(1) Passenger motor vehicle.--The term `passenger motor 
     vehicle' has the same meaning given such term by section 
     32101(10), except, notwithstanding section 32101(9), it 
     includes a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (constructed on a 
     truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-
     road operation), a truck, other than a truck referred to in 
     section 32101(10)(B), and a pickup truck when that vehicle or 
     truck is rated by the manufacturer of such vehicle or truck 
     at not more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, and it 
     only includes a vehicle manufactured primarily for use on 
     public streets, roads, and highways.
       ``(2) Salvage vehicle.--The term `salvage vehicle' means 
     any passenger motor vehicle, other than a flood vehicle or a 
     nonrepairable vehicle, which--
       ``(A) is a late model vehicle which has been wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged, to the extent that the total cost of 
     repairs to rebuild or reconstruct the passenger motor vehicle 
     to its condition immediately before it was wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged, and for legal operation on the roads 
     or highways, exceeds 75 percent of the retail value of the 
     passenger motor vehicle at the time it was wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged;
       ``(B) is a late model vehicle which has been wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged, and to which an insurance company 
     acquires ownership pursuant to a damage settlement (except in 
     the case of a settlement in connection with a recovered 
     stolen vehicle, unless such vehicle sustained damage 
     sufficient to meet the damage threshold prescribed by 
     subparagraph (A)); or
       ``(C) the owner wishes to voluntarily designate as a 
     salvage vehicle by obtaining a salvage title, without regard 
     to the level of damage, age, or value of such vehicle or any 
     other factor, except that such designation by the owner shall 
     not impose on the insurer of the passenger motor vehicle or 
     on an insurer processing a claim made by or on behalf of the 
     owner of the passenger motor vehicle any obligation or 
     liability.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a State 
     may use the term `older model salvage vehicle' to designate a 
     wrecked, destroyed, or damaged vehicle that does not meet the 
     definition of a late model vehicle in paragraph (9). If a 
     State has established or establishes a salvage definition at 
     a lesser percentage than provided under subparagraph (A), 
     then that definition shall not be considered to be 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.
       ``(3) Salvage title.--The term `salvage title' means a 
     passenger motor vehicle ownership document issued by the 
     State to the owner of a salvage vehicle. A salvage title 
     shall be conspicuously labeled with the word `salvage' across 
     the front.
       ``(4) Rebuilt salvage vehicle.--The term `rebuilt salvage 
     vehicle' means--
       ``(A) any passenger motor vehicle which was previously 
     issued a salvage title, had passed State anti-theft 
     inspection, has been issued a certificate indicating that the 
     passenger motor vehicle has passed the required anti-theft 
     inspection, has passed the State safety inspection in those 
     States requiring a safety inspection pursuant to section 
     33302(b)(8), has been issued a certificate indicating that 
     the passenger motor vehicle has passed the required safety 
     inspection in those States requiring such a safety inspection 
     pursuant to section 33302(b)(8), and has a decal stating 
     `Rebuilt Salvage Vehicle--Anti-theft and Safety Inspections 
     Passed' affixed to the driver's door jamb; or
       ``(B) any passenger motor vehicle which was previously 
     issued a salvage title, had passed a State anti-theft 
     inspection, has been issued a certificate indicating that the 
     passenger motor vehicle has passed the required anti-theft 
     inspection, and has, affixed to the driver's door jamb, a 
     decal stating `Rebuilt Salvage Vehicle--Anti-theft Inspection 
     Passed/No Safety Inspection Pursuant to National Criteria' in 
     those States not requiring a safety inspection pursuant to 
     section 33302(b)(8).
       ``(5) Rebuilt salvage title.--The term `rebuilt salvage 
     title' means the passenger motor vehicle ownership document 
     issued by the State to the owner of a rebuilt salvage 
     vehicle. A rebuilt salvage title shall be conspicuously 
     labeled either with the words `Rebuilt Salvage Vehicle--Anti-
     theft and Safety Inspections Passed' or `Rebuilt Salvage 
     Vehicle--Anti-theft Inspection Passed/No Safety Inspection 
     Pursuant to National Criteria,' as appropriate, across the 
     front.
       ``(6) Nonrepairable vehicle.--The term `nonrepairable 
     vehicle' means any passenger motor vehicle, other than a 
     flood vehicle, which is incapable of safe operation for use 
     on roads or highways and which has no resale value except as 
     a source of parts or scrap only or which the owner 
     irreversibly designates as a source of parts or scrap. Such 
     passenger motor vehicle shall be issued a nonrepairable 
     vehicle certificate and shall never again be titled or 
     registered.
       ``(7) Nonrepairable vehicle certificate.--The term 
     `nonrepairable vehicle certificate' means a passenger motor 
     vehicle ownership document issued by the State to the owner 
     of a nonrepairable vehicle. A nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate shall be conspicuously labeled with the word 
     `Nonrepairable' across the front.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       ``(9) Late model vehicle.--The term `Late Model Vehicle' 
     means any passenger motor vehicle which--
       ``(A) has a manufacturer's model year designation of or 
     later than the year in which the vehicle was wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged, or any of the six preceding years; or
       ``(B) has a retail value of more than $7,500. The Secretary 
     shall adjust such retail value by $500 increments every 5 
     years beginning with an increase to $8,000 on January 1, 
     2005.
       ``(10) Retail value.--The term `retail value' means the 
     actual cash value, fair market value, or retail value of a 
     passenger motor vehicle as--
       ``(A) set forth in a current edition of any nationally 
     recognized compilation (to include automated databases) of 
     retail values; or
       ``(B) determined pursuant to a market survey of comparable 
     vehicles with regard to condition and equipment.
       ``(11) Cost of repairs.--The term `cost of repairs' means 
     the estimated retail cost of parts needed to repair the 
     vehicle or, if the vehicle has been repaired, the actual 
     retail cost of the parts used in the repair, and the cost of 
     labor computed by using the hourly labor rate and time 
     allocations that are reasonable and customary in the 
     automobile repair industry in the community where the repairs 
     are to be performed.
       ``(12) Flood vehicle.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `flood vehicle' means any 
     passenger motor vehicle that--
       ``(i) has been acquired by an insurance company as part of 
     a damage settlement due to water damage; or
       ``(ii) has been submerged in water to the point that rising 
     water has reached over the door sill, has entered the 
     passenger or trunk compartment, and has exposed any 
     electrical, computerized, or mechanical component to water, 
     except where a passenger motor vehicle which, pursuant to an 
     inspection conducted by an insurance adjuster or estimator, a 
     motor vehicle repairer or motor vehicle dealer in accordance 
     with inspection guidelines or procedures established by the 
     Secretary or the State, is determined--
       ``(I) to have no electrical, computerized, or mechanical 
     components which were damaged by water; or
       ``(II) to have one or more electrical, computerized, or 
     mechanical components which were damaged by water and where 
     all such damaged components have been repaired or replaced.
       ``(B) Inspection not required for all flood vehicles.--No 
     inspection under subparagraph (A) shall be required unless 
     the owner or insurer of the passenger motor vehicle is 
     seeking to avoid a brand of `Flood' pursuant to this chapter.
       ``(C) Inspection must be by independent party.--A motor 
     vehicle repairer or motor vehicle dealer may not carry out an 
     inspection under subparagraph (A) on a passenger motor 
     vehicle that has been repaired, or is to be sold or leased, 
     by that repairer or dealer.
       ``(D) Effect of disclosure.--Disclosing a passenger motor 
     vehicle's status as a flood vehicle or conducting an 
     inspection pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not impose on 
     any person any liability for damage to (except in the case of 
     damage caused by the inspector at the time of the inspection) 
     or reduced value of a passenger motor vehicle.
       ``(b) Construction.--The definitions set forth in 
     subsection (a) only apply to vehicles in a State which are 
     wrecked, destroyed, or otherwise damaged on or after the date 
     on which such State complies with the requirements of this 
     chapter and the rule promulgated pursuant to section 
     33302(b).

     ``Sec. 33302. Passenger motor vehicle titling

       ``(a) Carry-Forward of State Information.--For any 
     passenger motor vehicle, the

[[Page 4807]]

     ownership of which is transferred on or after the date that 
     is 1 year after the date of the enactment of the National 
     Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1999, any 
     State receiving funds under section 33308 of this chapter, in 
     licensing such vehicle for use, shall disclose in writing on 
     the certificate of title whenever records readily accessible 
     to the State indicate that the passenger motor vehicle was 
     previously issued a title that bore any word or symbol 
     signifying that the vehicle was `salvage', `older model 
     salvage', `unrebuildable', `parts only', `scrap', `junk', 
     `nonrepairable', `reconstructed', `rebuilt', or any other 
     symbol or work of like kind, or that it has been damaged by 
     flood, and the name of the State that issued that title.
       ``(b) Nationally Uniform Title Standards and Control 
     Methods.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer 
     Protection Act of 1999, the Secretary shall by rule require 
     any State receiving funds under section 33308 of this 
     chapter, in licensing any passenger motor vehicle where 
     ownership of such passenger motor vehicle is transferred more 
     than 2 years after publication of such final rule, to apply 
     uniform standards, procedures, and methods for the issuance 
     and control of titles for motor vehicles and for information 
     to be contained on such titles. Such titling standards, 
     control procedures, methods, and information shall include 
     the following requirements:
       ``(1) A State shall conspicuously indicate on the face of 
     the title or certificate for a passenger motor vehicle, as 
     applicable, if the passenger motor vehicle is a salvage 
     vehicle, a nonrepairable vehicle, a rebuilt salvage vehicle, 
     or a flood vehicle.
       ``(2) Such information concerning a passenger motor 
     vehicle's status shall be conveyed on any subsequent title, 
     including a duplicate or replacement title, for the passenger 
     motor vehicle issued by the original titling State or any 
     other State.
       ``(3) The title documents, the certificates, and decals 
     required by section 33301(4), and the issuing system shall 
     meet security standards minimizing the opportunities for 
     fraud.
       ``(4) The certificate of title shall include the passenger 
     motor vehicle make, model, body type, year, odometer 
     disclosure, and vehicle identification number.
       ``(5) The title documents shall maintain a uniform layout, 
     to be established in consultation with the States or an 
     organization representing them.
       ``(6) A passenger motor vehicle designated as nonrepairable 
     shall be issued a nonrepairable vehicle certificate and shall 
     not be retitled.
       ``(7) No rebuilt salvage title shall be issued to a salvage 
     vehicle unless, after the salvage vehicle is repaired or 
     rebuilt, it complies with the requirements for a rebuilt 
     salvage vehicle pursuant to section 33301(4). Any State 
     inspection program operating under this paragraph shall be 
     subject to continuing review by and approval of the 
     Secretary. Any such anti-theft inspection program shall 
     include the following:
       ``(A) A requirement that the owner of any passenger motor 
     vehicle submitting such vehicle for an anti-theft inspection 
     provide a completed document identifying the vehicle's damage 
     prior to being repaired, a list of replacement parts used to 
     repair the vehicle, and proof of ownership of such 
     replacement parts, as may be evidenced by bills of sale, 
     invoices, or, if such documents are not available, other 
     proof of ownership for the replacement parts. The owner shall 
     also include an affirmation that the information in the 
     declaration is complete and accurate and that, to the 
     knowledge of the declarant, no stolen parts were used during 
     the rebuilding.
       ``(B) A requirement to inspect the passenger motor vehicle 
     or any major part of any major replacement part required to 
     be marked under section 33102 for signs of such mark or 
     vehicle identification number being illegally altered, 
     defaced, or falsified. Any such passenger motor vehicle or 
     any such part having a mark or vehicle identification number 
     that has been illegally altered, defaced, or falsified, and 
     that cannot be identified as having been legally obtained 
     (through bills of sale, invoices, or other ownership 
     documentation), shall be contraband and subject to seizure. 
     The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
     shall, as part of the rule required by this section, 
     establish procedures for dealing with those parts whose mark 
     or vehicle identification number is normally removed during 
     industry accepted remanufacturing or rebuilding practices, 
     which parts shall be deemed identified for purposes of this 
     section if they bear a conspicuous mark of a type, and 
     applied in such a manner, as designated by the Secretary, 
     indicating that they have been rebuilt or remanufactured. 
     With respect to any vehicle part, the Secretary's rule, as 
     required by this section, shall acknowledge that a mark or 
     vehicle identification number on such part may be legally 
     removed or altered as provided for in section 511 of title 
     18, United States Code, and shall direct inspectors to adopt 
     such procedures as may be necessary to prevent the seizure of 
     a part from which the mark or vehicle identification number 
     has been legally removed or altered.
       ``(8) Any safety inspection for a rebuilt salvage vehicle 
     performed pursuant to this chapter shall be performed in 
     accordance with nationally uniform safety inspection criteria 
     established by the Secretary. A State may determine whether 
     to conduct such safety inspection itself, contract with one 
     or more third parties, or permit self-inspection by a person 
     licensed by such State in an automotive-related business, all 
     subject to criteria promulgated by the Secretary hereunder. 
     Any State inspection program operating under this paragraph 
     shall be subject to continuing review by and approval of the 
     Secretary. A State requiring such safety inspection may 
     require the payment of a fee for the privilege of such 
     inspection or the processing thereof.
       ``(9) No duplicate or replacement title shall be issued 
     unless the word `duplicate' is clearly marked on the face 
     thereof and unless the procedures for such issuance are 
     substantially consistent with Recommendation three of the 
     Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory 
     Committee.
       ``(10) A State shall employ the following titling and 
     control methods:
       ``(A) If an insurance company is not involved in a damage 
     settlement involving a salvage vehicle or a nonrepairable 
     vehicle, the passenger motor vehicle owner shall apply for a 
     salvage title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate, whichever 
     is applicable, before the passenger motor vehicle is repaired 
     or the ownership of the passenger motor vehicle is 
     transferred, but in any event within 30 days after the 
     passenger motor vehicle is damaged.
       ``(B) If an insurance company, pursuant to a damage 
     settlement, acquires ownership of a passenger motor vehicle 
     that has incurred damage requiring the vehicle to be titled 
     as a salvage vehicle or nonrepairable vehicle, the insurance 
     company or salvage facility or other agent on its behalf 
     shall apply for a salvage title or nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate within 30 days after the title is properly 
     assigned by the owner to the insurance company and delivered 
     to the insurance company or salvage facility or other agent 
     on its behalf with all liens released.
       ``(C) If an insurance company does not assume ownership of 
     an insured's or claimant's passenger motor vehicle that has 
     incurred damage requiring the vehicle to be titled as a 
     salvage vehicle or nonrepairable vehicle, the insurance 
     company shall notify--
       ``(i) the owner of the owner's obligation to apply for a 
     salvage title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate for the 
     passenger motor vehicle; and
       ``(ii) the State passenger motor vehicle titling office 
     that a salvage title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate 
     should be issued for the vehicle,

     except to the extent such notification is prohibited by State 
     insurance law. The notices shall be made in writing within 30 
     days after the insurance company determines that the damage 
     will require a salvage title or a nonrepairable certificate 
     and that the vehicle will be left with the owner.
       ``(D) If a leased passenger motor vehicle incurs damage 
     requiring the vehicle to be titled as a salvage vehicle or 
     nonrepairable vehicle, the lessor shall apply for a salvage 
     title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate within 21 days 
     after being notified by the lessee that the vehicle has been 
     so damaged, except when an insurance company, pursuant to a 
     damage settlement, acquires ownership of the vehicle. The 
     lessee of such vehicle shall inform the lessor that the 
     leased vehicle has been so damaged within 30 days after the 
     occurrence of the damage. Nothing in this subparagraph 
     requires that the requirements for notification be contained 
     in the lease itself, as long as effective notice is provided 
     by the lessor to the lessee of the requirements.
       ``(E) Any person acquiring ownership of a damaged passenger 
     motor vehicle that meets the definition of a salvage or 
     nonrepairable vehicle for which a salvage title or 
     nonrepairable vehicle certificate has not been issued, shall 
     apply for a salvage title or nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate, whichever is applicable. This application shall 
     be made before the vehicle is further transferred, but in any 
     event, within 30 days after ownership is acquired. The 
     requirements of this subparagraph shall not apply to any 
     scrap metal processor which acquires a passenger motor 
     vehicle for the sole purpose of processing it into prepared 
     grades of scrap and which so processes such vehicle.
       ``(F) State records shall note when a nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate is issued. No State shall issue a nonrepairable 
     vehicle certificate after 2 transfers of ownership.
       ``(G) When a passenger motor vehicle has been flattened, 
     baled, or shredded, whichever comes first, the title or 
     nonrepairable vehicle certificate for the vehicle shall be 
     surrendered to the state within 30 days. If the second 
     transferee on a nonrepairable vehicle certificate is 
     unequipped to flatten, bale, or shred the vehicle, such 
     transferee shall, at the time of final disposal of the 
     vehicle, use the services of a professional automotive 
     recycler or professional scrap processor who is hereby 
     authorized to flatten, bale, or shred the vehicle and to 
     effect the surrender of the nonrepairable vehicle certificate 
     to the State on behalf of such second transferee. State 
     records shall be updated to indicate the destruction of such 
     vehicle and no further ownership transactions for the vehicle

[[Page 4808]]

     will be permitted. If different than the State of origin of 
     the title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate, the State of 
     surrender shall notify the State of origin of the surrender 
     of the title or nonrepairable vehicle certificate and of the 
     destruction of such vehicle.
       ``(H) When a salvage title is issued, the State records 
     shall so note. No State shall permit the retitling for 
     registration purposes or issuance of a rebuilt salvage title 
     for a passenger motor vehicle with a salvage title without a 
     certificate of inspection, which complies with the security 
     and guideline standards established by the Secretary pursuant 
     to paragraphs (3), (7), and (8), as applicable, indicating 
     that the vehicle has passed the inspections required by the 
     State. This subparagraph does not preclude the issuance of a 
     new salvage title for a salvage vehicle after a transfer of 
     ownership.
       ``(I) After a passenger motor vehicle titled with a salvage 
     title has passed the inspections required by the State, the 
     inspection official will affix the secure decal required 
     pursuant to section 33301(4) to the driver's door jamb of the 
     vehicle and issue to the owner of the vehicle a certificate 
     indicating that the passenger motor vehicle has passed the 
     inspections required by the State. The decal shall comply 
     with the permanency requirements established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(J) The owner of a passenger motor vehicle titled with a 
     salvage title may obtain a rebuilt salvage title or vehicle 
     registration, or both, by presenting to the State the salvage 
     title, properly assigned, if applicable, along with the 
     certificate that the vehicle has passed the inspections 
     required by the State. With such proper documentation and 
     upon request, a rebuilt salvage title or registration, or 
     both, shall be issued to the owner. When a rebuilt salvage 
     title is issued, the State records shall so note.
       ``(11) A seller of a passenger motor vehicle that becomes a 
     flood vehicle shall, prior to the time of transfer of 
     ownership of the vehicle, give the transferee a written 
     notice that the vehicle has been damaged by flood, provided 
     such person has actual knowledge that such vehicle has been 
     damaged by flood. At the time of the next title application 
     for the vehicle, disclosure of the flood status shall be 
     provided to the applicable State with the properly assigned 
     title and the word `Flood' shall be conspicuously labeled 
     across the front of the new title.
       ``(12) In the case of a leased passenger motor vehicle, the 
     lessee, within 15 days of the occurrence of the event that 
     caused the vehicle to become a flood vehicle, shall give the 
     lessor written disclosure that the vehicle is a flood 
     vehicle.
       ``(13) Ownership of a passenger motor vehicle may be 
     transferred on a salvage title, however, a passenger motor 
     vehicle for which a salvage title has been issued shall not 
     be registered for use on the roads or highways unless it has 
     been issued a rebuilt salvage title.
       ``(14) Ownership of a passenger motor vehicle may be 
     transferred on a rebuilt salvage title, and a passenger motor 
     vehicle for which a rebuilt salvage title has been issued 
     may, if permitted by State law, be registered for use on the 
     roads and highways.
       ``(15) Ownership of a passenger motor vehicle may only be 
     transferred 2 times on a nonrepairable vehicle certificate. A 
     passenger motor vehicle for which a nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate has been issued can never by title or registered 
     for use on roads or highways.
       ``(c) Electronic Procedures.--A State may employ electronic 
     procedures in lieu of paper documents whenever such 
     electronic procedures provide the same information, function, 
     and security otherwise required by this section.
       ``(d) National Record of Compliant States.--The Secretary 
     shall establish a record of the States which are in 
     compliance with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) 
     of this section. The Secretary shall work with States to 
     update this record upon the enactment of a State law which 
     causes a State to come into compliance or become noncompliant 
     with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section. Not later than 18 months after the enactment of the 
     National Salvage Motor Vehicles Consumer Protection Act of 
     1999, the Secretary shall establish a mechanism or mechanisms 
     to identify to interested parties whether a State is in 
     compliance with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) 
     of this section.

     ``Sec. 33303. Disclosure and label requirements on transfer 
       of rebuilt salvage vehicles

       ``(a) Written Disclosure Requirements.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Transportation, a person transferring ownership 
     of a rebuilt salvage vehicle shall, prior to the time of 
     transfer of ownership of the vehicle, give the transferee a 
     written disclosure that the vehicle is a rebuilt salvage 
     vehicle when such person has actual knowledge of the status 
     of such vehicle.
       ``(2) False statement.--A person making a written 
     disclosure required by a regulation prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection may not make a false 
     statement in the disclosure.
       ``(3) Completeness.--A person acquiring rebuilt salvage 
     vehicle for resale may accept a disclosure under paragraph 
     (1) only if it is complete.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary shall provide the way in which information is 
     disclosed and retained under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Label Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     require that a label be affixed to the windshield or window 
     of a rebuilt salvage vehicle before its first sale at retail 
     containing such information regarding that vehicle as the 
     Secretary may require. The label shall be affixed by the 
     individual who conducts the applicable State antitheft 
     inspection in a participating State.
       ``(2) Removal, alteration, or illegibility of required 
     label.--No person shall willfully remove, alter, or render 
     illegible any label required by paragraph (1) affixed to a 
     rebuilt salvage vehicle before the vehicle is delivered to 
     the actual custody and possession of the first retail 
     purchaser.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The requirements of subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall only apply to a transfer of ownership of a rebuilt 
     salvage vehicle where such transfer occurs in a State which, 
     at the time of the transfer, is complying with subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 33302.

     ``Sec. 33304. Report on funding

       ``The Secretary shall, contemporaneously with the issuance 
     of a final rule pursuant to section 33302(b), report to 
     appropriate committees of Congress whether the costs to the 
     States of compliance with such rule can be met by user fees 
     for issuance of titles, issuance of registrations, issuance 
     of duplicate titles, inspection of rebuilt vehicles, or for 
     the State services, or by earmarking any moneys collected 
     through law enforcement action to enforce requirements 
     established by such rule.

     ``Sec. 33305. Effect on State law

       ``(a) In General.--Unless a State is in compliance with 
     subsection (c) of section 33302, effective on the date the 
     rule promulgated pursuant to section 33302 becomes effective, 
     the provisions of this chapter shall preempt all State laws 
     such a State that receives funds under section 33308 of this 
     chapter, to the extent they are inconsistent with the 
     provisions of this chapter or the rule promulgated pursuant 
     to section 33302, which--
       ``(1) set forth the form of the passenger motor vehicle 
     title;
       ``(2) define, in connection with a passenger motor vehicle 
     part or part assembly separate from a passenger motor 
     vehicle), any term defined in section 33301 or the terms 
     `salvage', `nonrepairable', or `flood', or apply any of those 
     terms to any passenger motor vehicle (but not to a passenger 
     motor vehicle part or part assembly separate from a passenger 
     motor vehicle); or
       ``(3) set forth titling, recordkeeping, anti-theft 
     inspection, or control procedures in connection with any 
     salvage vehicle, rebuilt salvage vehicle, nonrepairable 
     vehicle, or flood vehicle.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Passenger motor vehicle; older model salvage.--
     Subsection (a)(2) does not preempt State use of the term--
       ``(A) `passenger motor vehicle' in statutes not related to 
     titling, recordkeeping, anti-theft inspection, or control 
     procedures in connection with any salvage vehicle, rebuilt 
     salvage vehicle, nonrepairable vehicle, or flood vehicle ; or
       ``(B) `older model salvage' to designate a wrecked, 
     destroyed, or damaged vehicle that is older than a late model 
     vehicle.
       ``(2) Private law actions.--Nothing in this chapter may be 
     construed to affect any private right of action under State 
     law.
       ``(c) Construction.--Additional disclosures of a passenger 
     motor vehicle's title status or history, in addition to the 
     terms defined in section 33301, shall not be deemed 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such 
     disclosures shall include disclosures made on a certificate 
     of title. When used in connection with a passenger motor 
     vehicle (but not in connection with a passenger motor vehicle 
     part or part assembly separate from a passenger motor 
     vehicle), any definition of a term defined in section 33301 
     which is different than the definition in that section or any 
     use of any term listed in subsection (a), but not defined in 
     section 33301, shall be deemed inconsistent with the 
     provisions of this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall 
     preclude a State from disclosing on a rebuilt salvage title 
     that a rebuilt salvage vehicle has passed a State safety 
     inspection which differed from the nationally uniform 
     criteria to be promulgated pursuant to section 33302(b)(8).

     ``Sec. 33306. Civil penalties

       ``(a) Prohibited Acts.--It is unlawful for any person 
     knowingly to--
       ``(1) make or cause to be made any false statement on an 
     application for a title (or duplicate title) for a passenger 
     motor vehicle or any disclosure made pursuant to section 
     33303;
       ``(2) fail to apply for a salvage title when such an 
     application is required;
       ``(3) alter, forge, or counterfeit a certificate of title 
     (or an assignment thereof), a nonrepairable vehicle 
     certificate, a certificate verifying an anti-theft inspection 
     or an anti-theft and safety inspection, a decal affixed to a 
     passenger motor vehicle pursuant to section 33302(b)(10(I), 
     or any disclosure made pursuant to section 33303;

[[Page 4809]]

       ``(4) falsify the results of, or provide false information 
     in the course of, an inspection conducted pursuant to section 
     33302(b)(7) or (8);
       ``(5) offer to sell any salvage vehicle or nonrepairable 
     vehicle as a rebuilt salvage vehicle;
       ``(6) fail to make any disclosure required by section 
     33302(b)(11);
       ``(7) fail to make any disclosure required by section 
     33303;
       ``(8) violate a regulation prescribed under this chapter;
       ``(9) move a vehicle or a vehicle title in interstate 
     commerce for the purpose of avoiding the titling requirements 
     of this chapter; or
       ``(10) conspire to commit any of the acts enumerated in 
     paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9).
       ``(b) Civil Penalty.--Any person who commits an unlawful 
     act as provided in subsection (a) of this section shall be 
     fined a civil penalty of up to $2,000 per offense. A separate 
     violation occurs for each passenger motor vehicle involved in 
     the violation.

     ``Sec. 33307. Actions by States

       ``(a) In General.--When a person violates any provision of 
     this chapter, the chief law enforcement officer of the State 
     in which the violation occurred may bring an action--
       ``(1) to restrain the violation;
       ``(2) recover amounts for which a person is liable under 
     section 33306; or
       ``(3) to recover the amount of damage suffered by any 
     resident in that State who suffered damage as a result of the 
     knowing commission of an unlawful act under section 33306(a) 
     by another person.
       ``(b) Statute of Limitations.--An action under subsection 
     (a) shall be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction 
     within 2 years after the date on which the violation occurs.
       ``(c) Notice.--The State shall serve prior written notice 
     of any action under subsection (a) or (f)(2) upon the 
     Attorney General of the United States and provide the 
     Attorney General with a copy of its complaint, except that if 
     it is not feasible for the State to provide such prior 
     notice, the State shall serve such notice immediately upon 
     instituting such action. Upon receiving a notice respecting 
     an action, the Attorney General shall have the right--
       ``(1) to intervene in such action;
       ``(2) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(3) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any action 
     under subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall prevent an 
     attorney general from exercising the powers conferred on the 
     attorney general by the laws of such State to conduct 
     investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to 
     compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       ``(e) Venue; Service of Process.--Any action brought under 
     subsection (a) in a district court of the United States may 
     be brought in the district in which the defendant is found, 
     is an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever venue is 
     proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code. 
     Process in such an action may be served in any district in 
     which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the 
     defendant may be found.
       ``(f) Actions by State Officials.--
       ``(1) Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit an 
     attorney general of a State or other authorized State 
     official from proceeding in state court on the basis of an 
     alleged violation of any civil or criminal statute of such 
     State, including those related to consumer protection.
       ``(2) In addition to actions brought by an attorney general 
     of a State under subsection (a), such an action may be 
     brought by officers of such State who are authorized by the 
     State to bring actions in such State on behalf of its 
     residents.

     ``Sec. 33308. Incentive Grants

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall make a grant to each State that demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that it is taking appropriate 
     actions to implement the provisions of this chapter.
       ``(b) Grants.--Pursuant to subsection (a), a grant to carry 
     out this chapter in a fiscal year shall be provided to each 
     qualifying State in an amount determined by multiplying--
       ``(1) the amount authorized for the fiscal year to carry 
     out this chapter, by
       ``(2) the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned to 
     each qualifying State under section 402 of title 23, United 
     States Code, for the fiscal year bears to the total amount of 
     funds apportioned to all qualifying States under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, for such fiscal year, except 
     that no State eligible for a grant under this paragraph shall 
     receive less than $250,000.
       ``(c) Use of Grants.--Any State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall use the funds to carry out the provisions 
     of this chapter, including such conformance related 
     activities as issuing titles, establishing and administering 
     vehicle theft or salvage vehicles safety inspections, 
     enforcement, and other related purposes.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this chapter $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--Funds authorized by this 
     section shall remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for part C 
     at the beginning of subtitle VI of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new 
     item:
``333. AUTOMOBILE SAFETY AND TITLE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.33301''.....

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 305.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Section 30501(4) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) `nonrepairable vehicle', `salvage vehicle', `flood 
     vehicle', and `rebuilt salvage vehicle' have the same 
     meanings given those terms in section 33301 of this title.''.
       (2) Section 30501(5) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``junk automobiles'' and inserting ``nonrepairable 
     vehicles''.
       (3) Section 30501(8) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``salvage automobiles'' and inserting ``salvage vehicles''.
       (4) Section 30501 of such title is amended by striking 
     paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as 
     paragraphs (7) and (8), respectively.
       (b) National Motor Vehicle Title Information System.--
       (1) Section 30502(d)(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) whether an automobile known to be titled in a 
     particular State is or has been a nonrepairable vehicle, a 
     rebuilt salvage vehicle, a flood vehicle, or a salvage 
     vehicle;''.
       (2) Section 30502(d)(5) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) whether an automobile bearing a known vehicle 
     identification number has been reported as a nonrepairable 
     vehicle, a rebuilt salvage vehicle, a flood vehicle, or a 
     salvage vehicle under section 30504 of this title.''.
       (c) State Participation.--Section 30503 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 30503. State participation

       ``(a) State Information.--Each State receiving funds 
     appropriated under subsection (c) shall make titling 
     information maintained by that State available for use in 
     operating the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System 
     established or designated under section 30502 of this title.
       ``(b) Verification Checks.--Each State receiving funds 
     appropriated under subsection (c) shall establish a practice 
     of performing an instant title verification check before 
     issuing a certificate of title to an individual or entity 
     claiming to have purchased an automobile from an individual 
     or entity in another State. The check shall consist of--
       ``(1) communicating to the operator--
       ``(A) the vehicle identification number of the automobile 
     for which the certificate of title is sought;
       ``(B) the name of the State that issued the most recent 
     certificate of title for the automobile; and
       ``(C) the name of the individual or entity to whom the 
     certificate of title was issued; and
       ``(2) giving the operator an opportunity to communicate to 
     the participating State the results of a search of the 
     information.
       ``(c) Grants to States.--
       ``(1) In cooperation with the States and not later than 
     January 1, 1994, the Attorney General shall--
       ``(A) conduct a review of systems used by the States to 
     compile and maintain information about the titling of 
     automobiles; and
       ``(B) determine for each State the cost of making titling 
     information maintain by that State available to the operator 
     to meet the requirements of section 30502(d) of this title.
       ``(2) The Attorney General may make reasonable and 
     necessary grants to participating States to be used in making 
     titling information maintained by those States available to 
     the operator.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than October 1, 1999, 
     the Attorney General shall report to Congress on which States 
     have met the requirements of this section. If a State has not 
     met the requirements, the Attorney General shall describe the 
     impediments that have resulted in the State's failure to meet 
     the requirements.''.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--Section 30504 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``junk automobiles 
     or salvage automobiles'' every place it appears and inserting 
     ``nonrepairable vehicles, rebuilt salvage vehicles, flood 
     vehicles, or salvage vehicles''.

     SEC. 4. DEALER NOTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR PROHIBITED SALE OF 
                   NONQUALIFYING VEHICLES FOR USE AS SCHOOLBUSES.

       Section 30112 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(c) Notification Program for Dealers Concerning Sales of 
     Vehicles as Schoolbuses.--Not later than September 1, 1999, 
     the Secretary shall develop and implement a program to notify 
     dealers and distributors in the United States that subsection 
     (a) prohibits the sale or delivery of any vehicle for use as 
     a schoolbus (as that term is defined in section 30125(a)(1) 
     of this title) that does not meet the standards prescribed 
     under section 30125(b) of this title.''.

[[Page 4810]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, 
        Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bond, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, 
        Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, 
        Mr. Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollins, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, 
        Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
        Reid, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond and Mr. 
        Warner):
  S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________