[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5915-5933]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 713. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a charitable deduction for certain expenses incurred in support of 
Native Alaskan subsistence whaling; to the Committee on Finance.


             native alaskan subsistence whaling act of 1999

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Stevens to introduce legislation that would resolve a dispute that has 
existed for several years between the IRS and native whaling captains 
in my state. Our legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to 
ensure that a charitable donation tax deduction would be allowed for 
native whaling captains who organize and support subsistence whaling 
activities in their communities.
  Subsistence whaling is a necessity to the Alaska Native community. In 
many of our remote village communities, the whale hunt is a tradition 
that has been carried on for generations over many millennia. It is the 
custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, 
wages and equipment costs associated with this important activity.
  In most instances, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuck, 
which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the 
Captain is required to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his 
village in order to help the community survive.
  The proposed deduction would allow the Captain to deduct up to $7,500 
to help defray the costs associated with providing this community 
service.
  Mr. President, I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all 
of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable 
organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the 
costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. 
However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale 
with the community would be lost.
  This is a very modest effort to allow the Congress to recognize the 
importance of this part of our Native Alaskan tradition. When this 
measure passed the senate two years ago, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimated that this provision would cost a mere three million 
dollars over a 10 year period. I think that is a very small price for 
preserving this vital link with our natives' heritage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 713

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Native Alaskan Subsistence 
     Whaling Act of 1999''.

[[Page 5916]]



     SEC. 2. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN 
                   EXPENSES INCURRED IN SUPPORT OF NATIVE ALASKAN 
                   SUBSISTENCE WHALING.

       (a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contributions and 
     gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as 
     subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Expenses Paid by Certain Whaling Captains in Support 
     of Native Alaskan Subsistence Whaling.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is 
     recognized by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission as a 
     whaling captain charged with the responsibility of 
     maintaining and carrying out sanctioned whaling activities 
     and who engages in such activities during the taxable year, 
     the amount described in paragraph (2) (to the extent such 
     amount does not exceed $7,500 for the taxable year) shall be 
     treated for purposes of this section as a charitable 
     contribution.
       ``(2) Amount described.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount described in this paragraph 
     is the aggregate of the reasonable and necessary whaling 
     expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year in 
     carrying out sanctioned whaling activities.
       ``(B) Whaling expenses.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the term `whaling expenses' includes expenses for--
       ``(i) the acquisition and maintenance of whaling boats, 
     weapons, and gear used in sanctioned whaling activities,
       ``(ii) the supplying of food for the crew and other 
     provisions for carrying out such activities, and
       ``(iii) storage and distribution of the catch from such 
     activities.
       ``(3) Sanctioned whaling activities.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `sanctioned whaling activities' means 
     subsistence bowhead whale hunting activities conducted 
     pursuant to the management plan of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
     Commission.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 714. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to maintain 
exemption of Alaska from dyeing requirements for exempt diesel fuel and 
kerosene; to the Committee on Finance.


                   DIESEL DYEING EXEMPTION FOR ALASKA

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Ted 
Stevens in introducing legislation that would clarify a provision in 
the tax code that exempts the State of Alaska from the IRS diesel 
dyeing rules.
  The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 included a provision 
that exempted Alaska from the diesel dyeing requirements during the 
period the state was exempted from the Clean Air Act low sulfur diesel 
dyeing rules. For various reasons, it was believed at the time that 
Alaska would ultimately be permanently exempted from the Clean Air Act 
rules. However, technological changes suggest that Alaska may in the 
next few years lose its exemption from the low sulfur rules.
  However, in our view, whether Alaska is exempted from the low sulfur 
rules, it is imperative that Alaska be permanently exempted from the 
IRS diesel dyeing rules. That is what our bill does.
  Today, more than 95 percent of all diesel fuel used in Alaska is 
exempt from tax because it is used for heating, power generation, or in 
commercial fishing boats. Under the diesel dyeing rules in place in 49 
states, exempt diesel must be dyed. If these diesel dyeing rules were 
applied to Alaska, refiners would have to buy huge quantities of dye, 
along with expensive injection systems, to dye all of this non-taxable 
diesel fuel.
  Although the Joint Tax Committee originally estimated in 1996 that 
repealing the dyeing rules for Alaska could cost the Treasury $500,000 
a year, some refiners were spending as much as $750,000 on dye alone. 
Add on another $100,000 for injection systems and you begin to wonder 
what happened to common sense regulation. Congress saw it that way and 
decided to exempt Alaska. Now that exemption should be made permanent.
  Approximately 65 percent of the state's communities are served solely 
by barges. For many of these communities, the fuel oil barge comes in 
only once a year when the waterways are not frozen. It is absurd to 
require these communities to build a second storage facility for undyed 
taxable fuel simply for the few vehicles in town that are subject to 
tax.
  It is currently projected that the state will have to spend from $200 
million to $400 million just to repair fuel storage tanks in hundreds 
of rural communities because of leaking fuel problems. If IRS dyeing 
rules were in place, millions more would have to be spent simply to 
maintain a small supply of taxable diesel in each of these communities.
  Mr. President, in 1996, Congress acted sensibly in exempting Alaska 
from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. It is my hope that we will again see 
the wisdom of exempting Alaska, this time making it a permanent 
exemption.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 714

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled,
       (a) Exception to Dyeing Requirements for Exempt Diesel Fuel 
     and Kerosene.--Paragraph (1) of section 4082(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception to 
     dyeing requirements is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) removed, entered, or sold in the State of Alaska for 
     ultimate sale or use in such State, and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     applies with respect to fuel removed, entered, or sold on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 715. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a 
portion of the Columbia River as a recreational river, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


            HANFORD REACH WILD AND SCENIC RIVER LEGISLATION

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
establish the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and Scenic 
River. Simply stated, this is the best, most cost-effective, and 
smartest way to protect the Northwest's dwindling wild salmon runs.
  The Hanford Reach is an extraordinary and unique place.
  While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed during the 
middle of this century, the Hanford Reach and other buffer areas within 
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine, ironically, by the 
same veil of secrecy and security that lead to the notorious nuclear 
and chemical contamination of the central Hanford Site. Today, these 
relatively undisturbed areas are the last wild remnants of a great 
river and vast ecological community that have been tamed by dams, 
farms, and other development elsewhere.
  As the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the 
significance of the Hanford Reach cannot be overstated. Mile for mile, 
it contains some of the most productive and important fish spawning 
habitat in the lower 48 states. The volume and velocity of the cool, 
clear waters of the Columbia River produce ideal conditions for 
spawning and migrating salmon. The Reach produces eighty percent of the 
Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of 
steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of 
the mainstem of the Columbia River.
  The Reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald 
eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and a diversity 
of other wildlife depend on the Reach. It is home to dozens of rare, 
threatened, and endangered plants and animals, some found only in the 
Reach. Native American culture thrived on the shores and islands of the 
Reach for millennia, and there are over 150 archeological sites in the 
proposed designation, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The 
Reach's naturally spawning salmon and cultural sites remain a vital 
part of the culture and religion of Native American groups in the area.
  It is remarkable that the Reach offers so much in such close 
proximity to the cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington. 
The Reach offers residents and visitors recreation of many types--from 
hunting, fishing, and hiking to kayaking, waterskiing,

[[Page 5917]]

and birdwatching--and adds greatly to the quality of life and economy 
of the area.
  Back in 1994, only the locals in and around the Tri-Cities had heard 
about the last-free flowing stretch of the mighty Columbia River. 
Several residents had been working more than thirty years to save the 
Reach and they got me involved to do the same. They showed me what a 
precious resource the Hanford Reach is, and I promised to do everything 
in my power to protect it.
  I convened a Hanford Reach Advisory Panel to develop a consensus plan 
to protect the river corridor. Their work has been the basis of the 
bills I have introduced in the past and that I am introducing today, 
and builds on the foundation begun by Senators Dan Evans and Brock 
Adams, and Congressman Sid Morrison who enacted legislation imposing a 
moratorium on development within the river corridor in 1987.
  I am confident this is the year we will finally achieve our goals and 
create a new Wild and Scenic River. We cannot wait any longer to save 
the Reach. Since the recent listing of the Puget Sound chinook, 
everyone across the Northwest is focused on what we all must do to save 
our wild salmon.
  Designating the Hanford Reach as a Wild and Scenic River is the 
simplest and most effective way to provide real, permanent protection 
for our wild salmon stocks. Only under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
will we get the expertise, resources and permanency that federal 
management agencies, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provide. 
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is recognized as the best way to protect 
endangered rivers across the nation. The Reach deserves no less than 
the best.
  And this designation will not cost a penny. The land surrounding the 
river is already publicly held. The Department of Energy owns land on 
both sides of the river, so no private lands will be acquired or taken 
out of production to save this special place.
  In addition to public ownership, this section of the river is in 
superb ecological condition. It offers the best salmon spawning grounds 
on the mainstem of the Columbia. It will not require the millions of 
dollars for remediation that we've spent on other rivers and streams 
across the country. All the Hanford Reach requires is our protection, 
and it will continue to produce salmon runs unsurpassed anyplace in the 
region.
  Creating a Wild and Scenic River will help us avoid drastic measures 
like breaching the dams along the Columbia and Snake River systems to 
restore salmon. The recent Endangered Species Act listing of nine more 
northwest salmon runs as threatened, is another indication that we must 
take immediate action. Protecting the Reach is an insurance policy 
against the future possibility of expensive clean-up efforts and 
lawsuits. We must make this investment now to demonstrate we're serious 
about protecting not only wild salmon, but also the economic and social 
structure in the inland West.
  This bill differs from my previous legislation in some important 
ways. Not only does it create a federally-designated recreational Wild 
and Scenic River, it also establishes an innovative management approach 
through the creation of a multi-party commission. The management 
commission will develop a plan to guide the US Fish and Wildlife 
Service and will be comprised of three federal representatives from the 
Departments of Energy, Interior, and Commerce (National Marine 
Fisheries Service); three Washington state representatives from the 
Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Community, Trade and 
Economic Development; three representatives of local government from 
the counties of Benton, Grant, and Franklin; three tribal 
representatives from the Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce peoples; and 
three local citizen representatives from conservation, recreation, and 
business interests.
  This bill also takes us a step closer to consolidating lands on the 
Hanford reservation itself in order to facilitate economic development, 
preservation of sacred tribal sites, and protection of important 
biological resources. It requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
and the Department of Energy to examine the best ways to consolidate 
BLM lands on the south side of the river on the Hanford site. It 
establishes the objectives of the study to clear title to lands along 
the railroad and in the 200 Area for industrial development; to protect 
wildlife and native plants; and to preserve cultural sites important to 
Native Americans.
  This bill does not address the critical and sensitive lands of the 
North Slope (also known as the Wahluke Slope) because the land is still 
needed by the Department of Energy for safety reasons. However, I hope 
to work through the administrative process to ensure these lands are 
not disturbed in any way that could possibly impact the healthy salmon 
spawning grounds below the White Bluffs. I remain committed to 
enlarging the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 
because, again, I am convinced we must provide the strongest, surest 
protection for the North Slope to offer our wild salmon their best hope 
for survival.
  At a time when the Pacific Northwest is spending hundreds of millions 
of dollars annually on restoration and enhancement efforts, and 
struggling to restore declining salmon runs, protecting the Hanford 
Reach is the most cost-effective measure we can take. That is why the 
Northwest Power Planning Council, Trout Unlimited, conservation groups, 
tribes, and many other regional interests involved in the salmon 
controversy all support designation of the Reach under the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
  These are some of the many good reasons for this Congress to take up 
and pass this legislation to ensure the Hanford Reach becomes a part of 
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I urge the other members of 
Congress to join us in demanding the permanent protection of this 
river. It has given us so very much. The least we can do for the 
Columbia River is to protect the last fifty-one miles of free-flowing 
waters and the wild salmon that call it home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 716. A bill to provide for the prevention of juvenile crime, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            the 21st century safe and sound communities act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a proposal for reducing 
juvenile crime--the ``21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act.'' In 
the past few years, we have begun to make real advances in fighting 
youth violence; in fact, in cities across the country, juvenile crime 
has started to fall. For example, in three ``Weed & Seed'' 
neighborhoods in Milwaukee, violent felonies dropped 47 percent, gun 
crimes fell 46 percent, and crime overall was down 21 percent. And 
after Boston implemented a citywide anti-crime plan, the number of 
juveniles murdered declined 80 percent, and in more than two years not 
a single child was killed by a gun. Not one child. Through a program 
called ``Safe and Sound,'' I have already worked hard with other public 
officials and business leaders to expand Milwaukee's success citywide. 
Now we need to build on what works, in order to protect our children 
and to make as many of our communities across the nation ``safe and 
sound.'' This measure will be an important step in the right direction.
  We do not have to reinvent the wheel to reduce juvenile crime. The 
lesson from Milwaukee, Boston and other cities is clear. There is no 
single magic solution, but a number of steps, taken together, can and 
will make a difference: put dangerous criminals behind bars; keep guns 
out of the hands of juveniles; and create after-school alternatives to 
gangs and drugs. That's what works, and that's what this proposal is 
all about. It builds on each of these three basic strategies and 
expands them to more cities and more rural communities across the 
nation. Let me explain.
  First, we can't even begin to stop violent kids unless we have police 
officers on the street to catch them, and

[[Page 5918]]

state and local prosecutors to try them. So this proposal makes it 
easier to lock up dangerous juveniles by extending the highly 
successful COPS program, which is due to expire after next year, 
through the year 2004. That will allow us to hire at least 50,000 new 
community police officers. And it provides $100 million per year for 
state and local prosecutors to go after juvenile criminals.
  Of course, we can't keep criminals off the streets unless we have a 
place to send them. Unfortunately, although we provide states with 
hundreds of millions of dollars each year to build new prisons, most 
states use all of these funds for adult prisons only. So this measure 
requires states to set aside 10 percent of federal prison funding to 
juvenile prisons or alternative placements of delinquent children. This 
commitment is consistent with dedicated funding for juvenile facilities 
in the Senate-passed 1994 crime bill, which set the stage for spending 
billions of dollars on prisons through the 1994 Crime Act.
  This proposal also helps rural communities keep dangerous kids behind 
bars. Now, although the closest juvenile facility may be hundreds of 
miles away, federal law prohibits rural police from locking up violent 
juveniles in adult jails for more than 24 hours. This means that state 
law enforcement officials either have to waste the time and resources 
to criss-cross the state even for initial court appearances, or simply 
let dangerous teens go free. In my view, that's a no-win situation. 
This measure gives rural police the flexibility they need by letting 
them detain juveniles in adult jails for up to 72 hours, provided they 
are separated from adult criminals.
  Moreover, this measure will help lock up gun-toting kids--and the 
people who illegally supply them with weapons. It builds on my 1994 
Youth Handgun Safety Act by turning illegal possession of a handgun by 
a minor into a felony. And the same goes for anyone who illegally sells 
handguns to kids. Kids and handguns don't mix, and our Federal law 
needs to make clear that this is a serious crime.
  And this measure makes it easier to identify the violent juveniles 
who need to be dealt with more severely--by strongly encouraging states 
to share the records of violent juvenile offenders and providing the 
funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact is that law 
enforcement officials need full disclosure in order to make informed 
judgments about who should be incarcerated, but current law allows too 
many records to be concealed or to vanish without a trace when a teen 
felon turns 18.
  Second, this proposal will help keep firearms out of the hands of 
young people. It promotes gun safety by requiring the sale of child 
safety locks with every new handgun. Child safety locks can help save 
many of the 500 children and teenagers killed each year in firearms 
accidents, and the 1,500 kids each year who use guns to commit suicide. 
Just as importantly, they can help prevent some of the 7,000 violent 
juvenile crimes committed every year with guns children took from their 
own homes.
  It also helps identify who is supplying kids with guns, so we can put 
them out of business and behind bars. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms has been working closely with cities like Milwaukee and 
Boston to trace guns used by young people back to the source. Using 
ATF's national database, police and prosecutors can target illegal 
suppliers of firearms and help stop the flow of firearms into our 
communities. This measure will expand the program to other cities and, 
with the increased penalties outlined above, help cut down illegal gun 
trafficking.
  In addition, it closes an inexcusable loophole that allows violent 
young offenders to buy guns legally when they turn 18. Under current 
law, violent adult offenders can't buy firearms, but violent juveniles 
can--even the kids convicted of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, 
Arkansas--at least once they are released at age 18. This has to stop. 
So this measure declares that all violent felons are disqualified from 
buying firearms, regardless of whether they were 10, 12, 14 or just a 
day short of their 18th birthday at the time of their offense.
  And not only will this proposal prohibit all violent criminals from 
owning firearms, no matter what their age, it also encourages 
aggressive enforcement of this federal law by dedicating federal 
prosecutors and investigators to this task. This builds on a successful 
program, supported by the NRA, that has helped reduce gun violence in 
Richmond through increased federal prosecution, public outreach and 
fewer plea bargains.
  Third, a balanced approach also requires a significant investment in 
crime prevention, so we can stop crime before it's too late. In fact, 
no one is more adamant in support of this approach than our nation's 
law enforcement officials. For example, last year more than 400 police 
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors nationwide endorsed a call for after-
school programs for all children. And in my home state of Wisconsin, 90 
percent of police chiefs and sheriffs I surveyed agreed that we need to 
increase federal prevention spending.
  This proposal promotes prevention by concentrating funding in 
programs that already have a record of success, like Weed & Seed, and 
those that rely on proven strategies, like the ones that give children 
a safe place to go in the after-school hours between 3 and 8 p.m., when 
juvenile crime peaks.
  For example, it expands the Weed & Seed program, a Republican program 
which combines aggressive enforcement and safe havens for at-risk kids. 
The measure also gives more schools the resources necessary to stay 
open after school, through expansion of the 21st Century Learning 
Center program. It promotes innovative prevention initiatives by 
reauthorizing and expanding the Title V At-Risk Children Challenge 
Grant program, which I authored, which encourages investment, 
collaboration, and long-range prevention planning by local communities, 
who must establish locally tailored prevention programs and contribute 
at least 50 cents for every federal dollar. It builds on our support 
for the valuable work of Boys & Girls Clubs, by continuing to dedicate 
funding to the Clubs and expanding funding to other successful 
organizations like the YMCA. And it requires that at least 20 percent 
of the new juvenile crime funds--namely the recently-appropriated $500 
million juvenile accountability block grant--be dedicated to 
prevention.
  Of course, we shouldn't blindly invest in prevention programs, just 
because they sound good. Quality, not quantity, matters. And it would 
be foolish to throw good money after bad. That's why my measure cuts 
nearly $1 billion in prevention programs authorized by the Crime Act--
so we don't waste money on redundant programs which don't have records 
of success or bipartisan support. And that's why my measure requires 5 
to 10 percent of all prevention funds to be set aside for rigorous 
evaluations--so we can keep funding the programs that work, and 
eliminate the programs that don't. We also reward cities that adopt 
comprehensive anti-juvenile crime strategies, like Milwaukee's and 
Boston's--so prevention is part of a balanced, coordinated overall 
plan.
  Mr. President, the question about how to reduce juvenile crime is no 
longer a mystery. We have a good idea about what works. The real 
question is this: Will we act to make our communities safer and sounder 
places to live and to prevent teen crime before it happens? I have 
faith that we will, and I believe this measure moves us forward. I ask 
unanimous consent that a summary of this proposal be printed for the 
Record. There being no objection, the summary was ordered printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Summary of the 21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act

       Title I: Increased Placement of Juveniles in Appropriate 
     Correctional Facilities
       States must dedicate 10 percent of all prison funding from 
     the 1994 Crime Act to juvenile facilities or alternative 
     placements for delinquent juveniles. Expands ability to 
     detain juveniles temporarily in rural adult jails by 
     permitting detention for up to 72 hours and ending 
     requirement of separate staff to oversee juveniles and 
     adults.

[[Page 5919]]

       Title II: Reducing Youth Access to Firearms
       Limits access of juveniles and juvenile offenders to 
     firearms. Requires the sale of child safety locks with all 
     handguns. Expands Department of the Treasury's youth crime 
     gun tracing program to identify more illegal gun traffickers 
     who are supplying guns to children. Increases jail time for 
     individuals who transfer handguns to juveniles and for 
     juveniles who illegally possess handguns. Prohibits the sale 
     of firearms to violent juvenile offenders after they become 
     18 years old. Increases enforcement of federal laws to 
     prohibit illegal possession of firearms by violent criminals, 
     including violent juvenile offenders.
       Title III: Consolidation of Prevention Programs
       Repeals nearly $1 billion in authorized prevention programs 
     from the 1994 Crime Act. Expands Weed & Seed to $200 million 
     per year (from $33.5 million in 1999), the Title V At-Risk 
     Children Challenge Grants to $200 million per year (from $55 
     million), and the 21st Century Learning Centers to $600 
     million per year (from $200 million), and extends Boys & 
     Girls Club funding for five more years, increasing funding to 
     $100 million per year (from $40 million) and expanding the 
     program to support other successful community organizations 
     like the YMCA. Consolidates several gang prevention programs 
     into one $25 million program. Rewards cities that adopt a 
     comprehensive anti-juvenile crime strategy based on the 
     Boston model. Sets aside 5 to 10 percent of prevention 
     funding for evaluation, implementing the proposal of the DOJ-
     sponsored University of Maryland report.
       Title IV: Juvenile Crime Control and Accountability Block 
     Grant
       Promotes funding for prosecutors, improved-record keeping, 
     juvenile prisons, and prevention through $500 million block 
     grant. Qualifying states must trace all firearms recovered 
     from individuals under age 21 to identify illegal firearm 
     traffickers, and must share criminal records of all juvenile 
     violent offenders with other jurisdictions. $100 million of 
     this grant program must be dedicated to both prevention and 
     to hiring more prosecutors.
       Title V: Extension of COPS and Juvenile Justice programs
       Extends program to hire new community police officers. 
     Reauthorizes Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention.
       Title VI: Extension of Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
       Extends trust fund established by 1994 Crime Act to pay for 
     anti-crime programs with savings from reduction of federal 
     workforce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
        Reid):
  S. 717. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that the reductions in social security benefits which are 
required in the case of spouses and surviving spouses who are also 
receiving certain Government pensions shall be equal to the amount by 
which two-thirds of the total amount of the combined monthly benefit 
(before reduction) and monthly pension exceeds $1,200, adjusted for 
inflation; to the Committee on Finance.


                  Government Pension Offset Reform Act

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to 
modify a harsh and heartless rule of government that is unfair and 
prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work 
in their retirement. This legislation is very important to me, very 
important to my constituents in Maryland, and very important to 
government workers and retirees across the nation. I want the middle 
class of this Nation to know that if you worked hard to become middle 
class you should stay middle class when you retire.
  Under current law, there is something called the Pension Offset law. 
This is a harsh and unfair policy. Let me tell you why.
  If you are a retired government worker, and you qualify for a spousal 
Social Security benefit based on your spouse's employment record, you 
may not receive what you qualify for. Because the Pension Offset law 
reduces or entirely eliminates a Social Security spousal benefit when 
the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, state or 
federal government job that was not covered by Social Security.
  This policy only applies to government workers, not private sector 
workers. Let me give you an example of two women, Helen and her sister 
Phyllis.
  Helen is a retired Social Security benefits counselor who lives in 
Woodlawn, Maryland. Helen currently earns $600 a month from her federal 
government pension. She's also entitled to a $645 a month spousal 
benefit from Social Security based on her deceased husband's hard work 
as an auto mechanic. That's a combined monthly benefit of $1,245.
  Phyllis is a retired bank teller also in Woodlawn, Maryland. She 
currently earns a pension of $600 a month from the bank. Like Helen, 
Phyllis is also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social 
Security based on her husband's employment. He was an auto-mechanic, 
too. In fact, he worked at the same shop as Helen's husband.
  So, Phyllis is entitled to a total of $1,245 a month, the same as 
Helen. But, because of the Pension Offset law, Helen's spousal benefit 
is reduced by \2/3\ of her government pension, or $400. So instead of 
$1,245 per month, she will only receive $845 per month.
  This reduction in benefits only happens to Helen because she worked 
for the government. Phyllis will receive her full benefits because her 
pension is a private sector pension. I don't think that's right, and 
that's why I'm introducing this legislation.
  The crucial thing about the Mikulski Modification is that it 
guarantees a minimum benefit of $1,200. So, with the Mikulski 
Modification to the Pension Offset, Helen is guaranteed at least $1,200 
per month.
  Let me tell you how it works. Helen's spousal benefit will be reduced 
only by 2/3 of the amount her combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200. 
In her case, the amount of the offset would be 2/3 of $45, or $30. 
That's a big difference from $400, and I think people like our federal 
workers, teachers and our firefighters deserve that big difference.
  Why should earning a government pension penalize the surviving 
spouse? If a deceased spouse had a job covered by Social Security and 
paid into the Social Security system, that spouse expected his earned 
Social Security benefits would be there for his surviving spouse.
  Most working men believe this and many working women are counting on 
their spousal benefits. But because of this harsh and heartless policy, 
the spousal benefits will not be there, your spouse will not benefit 
from your hard work, and, chances are, you won't find out about it 
until your loved one is gone and you really need the money.
  The Mikulski modification guarantees that the spouse will at least 
receive $1,200 in combined benefits. That Helen will receive the same 
amount as Phyllis.
  I'm introducing this legislation, because these survivors deserve 
better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset 
currently allows. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, not 
penalized for it.
  Many workers affected by this Offset policy are women, or clerical 
workers and bus drivers who are currently working and looking forward 
to a deserved retirement. These are people who worked hard as federal 
employees, school teachers, or firefighters.
  Frankly, I would repeal this policy all together. But, I realize that 
budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we 
can agree that retirees who work hard should not have this offset 
applied until their combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200.
  In the few cases where retirees might have their benefits reduced by 
this policy change, my legislation will calculate their pension offset 
by the current method. I also have a provision in this legislation to 
index the minimum amount of $1,200 to inflation so retirees will see 
their minimum benefits increase as the cost of living increases.
  I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not 
be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. That's why I'm 
introducing this bill today.
  Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana has introduced similar 
legislation in the House. I look forward to working with him to modify 
the harsh Pension Offset rule.
  If the federal government is going to force government workers and 
retirees in Maryland and across the country to give up a portion of 
their spousal benefits, the retirees should at least receive a fair 
portion of their benefits.

[[Page 5920]]

  I want to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort and 
support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 718. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to extend the civil service retirement provisions of such chapter 
which are applicable to law enforcement officers, to inspectors of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, inspectors and canine 
enforcement officers of the United States Customs Service, and revenue 
officers of the Internal Revenue Service; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


         Hazardous Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1999

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hazardous 
Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1999. This legislation will 
grant an early retirement package for revenue officers of the Internal 
Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the U.S. Customs Service, and 
immigration inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and 
firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal 
service. Most people would be surprised to learn that current law does 
not treat revenue officers, customs inspectors and immigration 
inspectors as federal law enforcement personnel.
  This legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the 
same 20-year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue 
Service, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
The employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically taxing 
occupations, and it is in the public's interest to have a young and 
competent work force in these jobs.
  The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the 
Customs Service is very clear. These employees are the country's first 
line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at 
our borders. They have the authority to apprehend those engaged in 
these crimes. These officers carry a firearm on the job. They are 
responsible for the most arrests performed by Customs Service 
employees. The Customs Service interdicts more narcotics than any other 
law enforcement agency--over a million pounds a year. In 1996, they 
seized 180,946 pounds of cocaine, 2,895 pounds of heroin, and 775,225 
pounds of marijuana. They are required to have the same law enforcement 
training as all other law enforcement personnel. These employees face 
so many challenges. They confront criminals in the drug war, organized 
crime figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar criminals.
  Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job 
stress. Some IRS employees must even employ pseudonyms to hide their 
identity because of the great threat to their personal safety. The 
Internal Revenue Service currently provides it's employees with a 
manual entitled: `Assaults and Threats: A Guide to Your Personal 
Safety' to help employees respond to hostile situations. The document 
advises IRS employees how to handle on-the-job assaults, abuse, 
threatening telephone calls, and other menacing situations.
  Mr. President, this legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is 
created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs 
and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these 
critical employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, 
decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the 
retention of a well-trained and experienced work force.
  I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing 
support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will 
improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work 
force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of 
the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 719. A bill to provide for the orderly disposal of certain Federal 
land in the State of Nevada and for the acquisition of environmentally 
sensitive land in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


             the nevada public land management act of 1999

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today, the Nevada 
Public Land Management Act of 1999. This Act provides a process for the 
sale of public lands to support the expansion and economic development 
of rural communities in Nevada.
  Many of Nevada's rural counties are actively planning for economic 
growth and expansion. However, they are hampered, because more than 87 
percent of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government and some Nevada 
counties are more than 90 percent owned by the federal government. As 
these counties seek to expand economic diversification, they find 
themselves land-locked by Federal lands.
  But a lack of land is not the only problem these counties face. Many 
lack an adequate tax base, due to their lack of private lands. As the 
tax roles shrink and they experience some growth, officials are unable 
to adequately provide the basic public services expected of them. 
Adequate police and fire protection, education, road maintenance, and 
basic health care are suffering.
  The legislation we introduce today will allow for the coordinated 
disposal of Federal lands that have already been identified by the 
Federal government and the Bureau of Land Management as suitable for 
disposal. Simply put, we are setting up a willing seller-willing buyer 
scenario. Sale of these lands will allow for economic diversification 
while implementing smart growth practices. Local governments will 
benefit from an infusion of revenue and a stable tax base to fund basic 
public services.
  Senator Bryan's and my bill requires that disposal of Nevada's lands 
be accomplished by competitive bidding, a process which will ensure 
that the sale of these public lands yield the highest return for the 
public. It is crucial to rural Nevada that we provide revenues for the 
basic services so many Americans take for granted, while also giving 
the Federal government the revenues they need to acquire truly special 
lands for future generations to enjoy.
  Mr. President, this bill was drafted with conscious regard for the 
laws governing the management of public lands. In particular, the bill 
meets the intent of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in three 
ways. First, it only involves lands determined to be suitable for 
disposal by the Bureau of Land Management's own land use planning 
process. Secondly, the bill assures that state and local governments 
are provided meaningful public involvement in land use decisions for 
public lands. And finally, the bill would allow for expansion of 
communities and economic development.
  Two years ago I convened a Presidential Summit on the shores of Lake 
Tahoe to save the Lake. This Summit created a model of federal, state, 
local, public and private partnership. It is a model that the President 
said can apply across the nation and across the world. We learned there 
that we can all work together to preserve the nation's special places 
and promote economic growth. The legislation we introduce today is 
crafted with the Lake Tahoe Model in mind. It encourages cooperation 
between all levels of government and the private sector. It is 
supported by Nevada state and local officials on a bi-partisan basis 
and our Republican colleague, Representative Jim Gibbons, has 
introduced similar legislation today in the House.
  This kind of bill shows truly how government can work for the people 
in partnership. I urge its swift passage.
  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. 719

       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 ``Nevada Public Land 
     Management Act of 1999''.

[[Page 5921]]



     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute over 
     87 percent of the area of the State, and in 10 of the 17 
     counties the Federal Government controls at least 80 percent 
     of the land;
       (2) the large amount of federally controlled land in Nevada 
     and the lack of an adequate private land ownership base has 
     had a negative impact on the overall economic development of 
     rural counties and communities and severely degraded the 
     ability of local governments to provide necessary services;
       (3) under general land laws less than 3 percent of the 
     Federal land in Nevada has moved from Federal control to 
     private ownership in the last 130 years;
       (4) in resource management plans, the Bureau of Land 
     Management has identified for disposal land that is difficult 
     and costly to manage and that would more appropriately be in 
     non-Federal ownership;
       (5) implementation of Federal land management plans has 
     been impaired by the lack of necessary funding to provide the 
     needed improvements and the lack of land management programs 
     to accomplish the goals and standards set out in the plans; 
     and
       (6) the lack of a private land tax base prevents most local 
     governments from providing the appropriate infrastructure to 
     allow timely development of land that is disposed of by the 
     Federal Government for community expansion and economic 
     growth.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide 
     for--
       (1) the orderly disposal and use of certain Federal land in 
     the State of Nevada that was not included in the Southern 
     Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
     263; 112 Stat. 2343);
       (2) the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in 
     the State; and
       (3) the implementation of projects and activities in the 
     State to protect or restore important environmental and 
     cultural resources.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Current land use plan.--The term ``current land use 
     plan'', with respect to an administrative unit of the Bureau 
     of Land Management, means the management framework plan or 
     resource management plan applicable to the unit that was 
     approved most recently before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Environmentally sensitive land.--The term 
     ``environmentally sensitive land'' means land or an interest 
     in land, the acquisition of which the United States would, in 
     the judgment of the Secretary or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture--
       (A) promote the preservation of natural, scientific, 
     aesthetic, historical, cultural, watershed, wildlife, or 
     other values that contribute to public enjoyment or 
     biological diversity;
       (B) enhance recreational opportunities or public access;
       (C) provide the opportunity to achieve better management of 
     public land through consolidation of Federal ownership; or
       (D) otherwise serve the public interest.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Special account.--The term ``Special Account'' means 
     the account established by section 6.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Nevada.
       (6) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means the elected governing body of each city 
     and county in the State except the cities of Las Vegas, 
     Henderson, and North Las Vegas.

     SEC. 4. DISPOSAL AND EXCHANGE.

       (a) Disposal.--In accordance with this Act, the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.), and other applicable law and subject to valid existing 
     rights, the Secretary may dispose of public land within the 
     State identified for disposal under current land use plans 
     maintained under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713), other than land that 
     is identified for disposal under the Southern Nevada Public 
     Land Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263; 112 Stat. 
     2343).
       (b) Recreation and Public Purpose Conveyances.--
       (1) In general.--Not less than 30 days before offering land 
     for sale or exchange under subsection (a), the State or the 
     unit of local government in the jurisdiction of which the 
     land is located may elect to obtain the land for local public 
     purposes under the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize 
     acquisition or use of public lands by States, counties, or 
     municipalities for recreational purposes'', approved June 14, 
     1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and Public Purposes 
     Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.).
       (2) Retention by secretary.--If the State or unit of local 
     government elects to obtain the land, the Secretary shall 
     retain the land for conveyance to the State or unit of local 
     government in accordance with that Act.
       (c) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, all 
     Federal land selected for disposal under subsection (d)(1) is 
     withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws and 
     from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal 
     leasing laws until the Secretary terminates the withdrawal or 
     the land is patented.
       (d) Selection.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, the unit of local 
     government that has jurisdiction over land identified for 
     disposal under subsection (a), and the State shall jointly 
     select land to be offered for sale or exchange under this 
     section.
       (2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate land 
     disposal activities with the unit of local government under 
     the jurisdiction of which the land is located.
       (3) Local land use planning and zoning requirements.--The 
     Secretary shall dispose of land under this section in a 
     manner that is consistent with local land use planning and 
     zoning requirements and recommendations.
       (e) Sales Offering, Price, Procedures, and Prohibitions.--
       (1) Offering.--The Secretary shall make the first offering 
     of land as soon as practicable after land has been selected 
     under subsection (d).
       (2) Sale price.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall make all sales of land 
     under this section at a price that is not less than the fair 
     market value of the land, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Affordable housing.--Subparagraph (A) does not affect 
     the authority of the Secretary to make land available at less 
     than fair market value for affordable housing purposes under 
     section 7(b) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 
     Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263; 112 Stat. 2349).
       (3) Competitive bidding.--
       (A) In general.--The sale of public land selected under 
     subsection (d) shall be conducted in accordance with sections 
     203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713, 1719).
       (B) Exceptions.--The exceptions to competitive bidding 
     requirements under section 203(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713(f)) shall apply to 
     sales under this Act in cases in which the Secretary 
     determines that application of an exception is necessary and 
     proper.
       (C) Notice of competitive bidding procedures.--The 
     Secretary shall also ensure adequate notice of competitive 
     bidding procedures to--
       (i) owners of land adjoining the land proposed for sale;
       (ii) local governments in the vicinity of the land proposed 
     for sale; and
       (iii) the State.
       (4) Prohibitions.--A sale of a tract of land selected under 
     subsection (d) shall not be undertaken if the Federal costs 
     of sale preparation and processing are estimated to exceed 
     the proceeds of the sale.
       (f) Disposition of Proceeds.--
       (1) Land sales.--Of the gross proceeds of sales of land 
     under this section during a fiscal year--
       (A) 5 percent shall be paid to the State for use in the 
     general education program of the State;
       (B) 45 percent shall be paid directly to the local unit of 
     government in the jurisdiction of which the land is located 
     for use as determined by the unit of local government, with 
     consideration given to use for support of health care 
     delivery, law enforcement, and schools; and
       (C) 50 percent shall be deposited in the Special Account.
       (2) Land exchanges.--
       (A) In general.--In a land exchange under this section, the 
     non-Federal party shall provide direct payment to the unit of 
     local government in the jurisdiction of which the land is 
     located in an amount equal to 15 percent of the fair market 
     value of the Federal land conveyed in the exchange.
       (B) Treatment of payments as cost incurred.--If any 
     agreement to initiate the exchange so provides, a payment 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be considered to be a cost 
     incurred by the non-Federal party that shall be compensated 
     by the Secretary.
       (C) Pending exchanges.--This Act, other than subsections 
     (a) and (b) and this subsection, shall not apply to any land 
     exchange for which an initial agreement to initiate an 
     exchange was signed by an authorized representative of the 
     exchange proponent and an authorized officer of the Bureau of 
     Land Management before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (g) Additional Disposal Land.--Public land identified for 
     disposal in the State under a replacement of or amendment to 
     a current land use plan shall be subject to this Act.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND.

       (a) In General.--After consultation in accordance with 
     subsection (c), the Secretary may use funds in the Special 
     Account and any other funds that are made available by law to 
     acquire environmentally sensitive land and interests in 
     environmentally sensitive land.
       (b) Consent.--The Secretary may acquire environmentally 
     sensitive land under this section only from willing sellers.
       (c) Consultation.--
       (1) In general.--Before initiating efforts to acquire 
     environmentally sensitive land under this section, the 
     Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with 
     the State and units of local government under

[[Page 5922]]

     the jurisdiction of which the environmentally sensitive land 
     is located (including appropriate planning and regulatory 
     agencies) and with other interested persons concerning--
       (A) the necessity of making the acquisition;
       (B) the potential impact of the acquisition on State and 
     local government; and
       (C) other appropriate aspects of the acquisition.
       (2) Additional consultation.--Consultation under this 
     paragraph shall be in addition to any other consultation that 
     is required by law.
       (d) Administration.--On acceptance of title by the United 
     States, any environmentally sensitive land or interest in 
     environmentally sensitive land acquired under this section 
     that is within the boundaries of a unit of the National 
     Forest System, the National Park System, the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     System, the National Trails System, the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, any other system established by law, or 
     any national conservation or recreation area established by 
     law--
       (1) shall become part of the unit or area without further 
     action by the Secretary or Secretary of Agriculture; and
       (2) shall be managed in accordance with all laws (including 
     regulations) and land use plans applicable to the unit or 
     area.
       (e) Fair Market Value.--The fair market value of 
     environmentally sensitive land or an interest in 
     environmentally sensitive land to be acquired by the 
     Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture under this section 
     shall be determined--
       (1) under section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711) and other applicable 
     requirements and standards; and
       (2) without regard to the presence of a species listed as a 
     threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (f) Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--Section 6901(1) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or ''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) acquired by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under section 5 of the Nevada Public 
     Land Management Act of 1999 that is not otherwise described 
     in subparagraphs (A) through (G).''.

     SEC. 6. SPECIAL ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a separate account to be used in carrying 
     out this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The Special Account shall consist of--
       (1) amounts deposited in the Special Account under section 
     4(f)(1)(B);
       (2) donations to the Special Account; and
       (3) appropriations to the Special Account.
       (c) Use.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts in the Special Account shall be 
     available to the Secretary until expended, without further 
     Act of appropriation, to pay--
       (A) subject to paragraph (2), costs incurred by the Bureau 
     of Land Management in arranging sales or exchanges under this 
     Act, including the costs of land boundary surveys, compliance 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4321 et seq.), appraisals, environmental and cultural 
     clearances, and public notice;
       (B) the cost of acquisition of environmentally sensitive 
     land or interest in such land in the State;
       (C) the cost of carrying out any necessary revision or 
     amendment of a current land use plan of the Bureau of Land 
     Management that relates to land sold, exchanged, or acquired 
     under this Act;
       (D) the cost of projects or programs to restore or protect 
     wetlands, riparian areas, or cultural, historic, prehistoric, 
     or paleontological resources, including petroglyphs;
       (E) the cost of projects, programs, or land acquisition to 
     stabilize or restore water quality and lake levels in Walker 
     Lake; and
       (F) related costs determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Costs in arranging sales or exchanges.--Costs charged 
     against the Special Account for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed the minimum amount 
     practicable in view of the fair market value of the Federal 
     land to be sold or exchanged.
       (B) Acquisition.--Not more than 50 percent of the amounts 
     deposited in the Special Account in any fiscal year may be 
     used in that fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year for 
     the purpose described in paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Plan revisions and amendments.--The process of revising 
     or amending a land use plan shall not cause delay or 
     postponement in the implementation of this Act.
       (d) Interest.--All funds deposited in the Special Account 
     shall earn interest in the amount determined by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury on the basis of the current average market 
     yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United 
     States of comparable maturities. Such interest shall be added 
     to the principal of the account and expended in accordance 
     with subsection 6(c).
       (e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the use 
     of the Special Account with the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     State, and units of local government in which land or an 
     interest in land may be acquired, to ensure accountability 
     and demonstrated results.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a biennial report 
     that describes each transaction that is carried out under 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 720. A bill to promote the development of a government in the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) based on 
democratic principles and the rule of law, and that respects 
internationally recognized human rights, to assist the victims of 
Serbian oppression, to apply measures against the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                   serbia democratization act of 1999

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is a significant piece of legislation, 
I believe, the Serbia Democratization Act of 1999, on which I am 
honored by the cosponsorship of a number of distinguished colleagues--
Senators Gordon Smith, Lugar, Lieberman, Lautenberg, DeWine, McCain, 
and Orrin Hatch.
  More than a year ago, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic sent 
Serbian troops into Kosovo to launch a brutal assault on the ethnic 
Albanian population there. This action was the beginning of a merciless 
and unjustified Serbian offensive against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. 
Two thousand victims of Milosevic's cruelty lie dead--many of them 
innocent civilians. And hundreds of thousands of people have been 
driven from their homes.
  Mr. President, this tragedy in Kosovo has emphasized the obvious: 
that if the United States continues to foolishly hope for good will on 
the part of Milosevic, the United States will be dragged into the 
crises this cruel man manufactures time and again. Instead of pursuing 
a strategy that leads to NATO airstrikes or the deployment of thousands 
of United States troops in peacekeeping operations, I believe it is the 
course of wisdom to examine the root cause of instability in that 
region--the bloody regime of Slobodan Milosevic.
  President Milosevic has imposed rigid controls on, or launched 
outright attacks against, the media, universities, and the judicial 
system in Serbia to prevent the possibility that a democracy and an 
independent civil society can be developed. The massacres of innocent 
women and children in Kosovo demonstrate Milosevic's disregard for 
basic human rights. This man, in a word, forbids the very thought of a 
democratic system in Serbia.
  For too long this Administration has claimed that no viable 
democratic opposition exists in Serbia or that the United States has no 
choice but to work with Milosevic. Mr. President, I refuse to accept 
this argument. There are individuals and organizations in Serbia that 
can be a force for democratic change in that country. Milosevic is not 
the only option. And in no case should the United States treat that 
dictator as a responsible leader or as someone with whom we can do 
business.
  The Serbia Democratization Act, which I am introducing today, has but 
one purpose--to get rid of the murderous regime of Mr. Milosevic. Let 
me briefly summarize the key points of the legislation:
  It authorizes $100 million over a two year period to support the 
development of a government in Yugoslavia based on democratic 
principles and the rule of law.
  It calls for increased Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio 
Liberty broadcasting to Serbia to undermine state control of the media 
and spread the message of democracy to the people of Serbia.

[[Page 5923]]

  It calls for humanitarian and other assistance to the victims of 
oppression in Kosovo.
  It adds new sanctions or strengthens those that exist against Serbia 
until the President certifies that the government is democratic. For 
example, it codifies the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions that the 
United States has informally in place. It blocks Yugoslav assets in the 
United States. It prevents senior Yugoslav and Serbian government 
officials, and their families, from receiving visas to travel to the 
U.S. And it requires a democratic government to be in place in Serbia 
before extending MFN status to Yugoslavia.
  It states that the U.S. should send to the International Criminal 
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia all information we have on the 
involvement of Milosevic in war crimes.
  Now, as for Mr. Milosevic's future, I do not care one way or the 
other if he lives out his days in sunny Cyprus if he will agree to step 
aside and make way for democracy in Serbia. The important thing is that 
he be removed from power, whether voluntarily or not.
  Once the Milosevic regime has been replaced by a democratic 
government in Yugoslavia, this legislation calls for immediate and 
substantial U.S. assistance to support the transition to democracy. 
When that day comes, I will lead the way in encouraging Yugoslavia to 
take its place among the democratic nations of the West. Until that 
time, I will work to implement a policy that will undermine the 
autocratic regime of Slobodan Milosevic in every way possible.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as one of a bipartisan 
group of Senators introducing the Serbia Democratization Act of 1999.
  We've been developing this legislation for some time, to address our 
long-term interest in fostering democracy and human rights in what 
remains of the former Yugoslavia. But this legislation sends an 
important message at a time when our Armed Forces are conducting air 
operations and missile strikes against the so-called Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia, comprising Serbia and Montenegro.
  The message this legislation sends to the people of Serbia and 
Montenegro is this: We are determined to punish those leaders 
responsible for such horrific violence throughout the former 
Yugoslavia. But we are also ready to support the development of 
democracy and civil society to help the people of Serbia and Montenegro 
overcome the repression which they, too, have suffered under the 
Milosevic regime.
  The measures outlined in this act will help free thought and free 
speech to survive in Serbia-Montenegro. This legislation will also give 
victims of Serbian attacks, particularly in Kosovo, a degree of comfort 
knowing the American people stand with them in their hour of need even 
as our aircraft fly overhead.
  This legislation also puts Slobodan Milosevic on notice that the 
reign of terror he has unleashed against the people of the Balkans--
including Serbs and others within Serbia--will soon be over. Along with 
democratization measures for Serbia-Montenegro, this act contains 
narrow sanctions to make it more difficult for Milosevic to sustain his 
corrupt regime and carry on his bloody war.
  The years Milosevic has been in power have left the region 
devastated. Americans remember all too well his brutal handiwork in the 
war in Bosnia. The images of destroyed homes, ethnically cleansed 
villages, of decaying corpses in mass graves, are indelibly etched in 
all our minds.
  Now, less than two years after the signing of the Dayton peace 
agreement which brought about the end of that war, Milosevic has 
unleashed a similarly brutal campaign against people within Serbia. 
Yugoslav tanks and soldiers are attempting to crush the Kosovar 
Albanians' resistance. Belgrade's brutal crackdown has left thousands 
dead, tens of thousands homeless, and hundreds of thousands displaced 
from their towns and villages.
  The man known in the Balkans as the Butcher of Belgrade, does not 
reserve his repression for Croats, Bosniaks, or Albanians. In his quest 
to gain and hold power, he has not spared his capital of Belgrade.
  For years now, Slobodan Milosevic has carried out a sustained 
campaign to destroy his country's democratic institutions and its 
people's freedoms. He is a communist thug, a relic of the bad old days 
of Central Europe. For years, he has run whole of the so-called Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia from his position as head of the constituent 
Republic of Serbia, leaving the constitution of the former Yugoslavia 
in tatters.
  The Milosevic regime has tried for years to prevent the development 
of independent media outlets to provide accurate news and other 
information to the people of Serbia and Montenegro. Journalists who 
have pursued stories unflattering to the regime have been threatened 
and beaten by police. Independent television stations and newspapers 
are being shut down through litigation under a draconian press law 
passed last fall. As the State Department's 1998 Human Rights Report 
notes, that law allows private citizens and organizations to bring suit 
against media outlets for publishing information not deemed patriotic 
enough or considered to be ``against the territorial integrity, 
sovereignty and independence of the country.''
  The effects of this policy are chilling. The people of Serbia-
Montenegro are getting a filtered message about the events in their 
country and around the world. They see and hear and read only the news 
their Government chooses to disseminate.
  Since NATO announced the approval of air operations and missile 
strikes, Belgrade has cracked down further on the independent media. 
Radio B92, operated courageously by Veran Matic, was shut down at 
gunpoint. Instead of hearing what is really happening, instead of 
hearing our reasons for conducting air strikes, people in Belgrade hear 
the regime's propaganda on Government radio.
  The university in Belgrade--one of the great institutes of higher 
learning in Central Europe--has been purged of professors who refuse to 
tow the party line. Students who have protested this action have been 
harassed. As a result, there are virtually no progressive professors or 
students left in several programs.
  The economy, too, is in tatters. Unemployment and underemployment 
hovers at 60 percent, primarily because the government has been 
unwilling to carry out needed economic reforms. Privatization, the 
cornerstone of a market economy, remains at a standstill, allowing 
cronyism and corruption to flourish.
  I would like to draw particular attention to a section of this law 
concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the former 
Yugoslavia.
  As many of you know, for the past two years I have introduced 
legislation that bans U.S. aid to communities in the former Yugoslavia 
harboring war criminals. I introduced that legislation because it is my 
firm belief that democracy cannot come to a country, that a nation 
cannot begin to face the sins of its past, and that people cannot feel 
secure in their own communities, until individuals who persecuted 
others are brought to justice.
  Milosevic has a deplorable record in cooperating with the Tribunal. 
He has continually scorned his obligations to the United Nations to 
turn over war criminals to the Tribunal for prosecution, citing 
constitutional constraints. Consequently, indicted war criminals--
including Ratko Mladic, who is responsible for the massacre of hundreds 
of people during the Bosnian war, and the so-called Vukovar three who 
were indicted for the murder of 260 unarmed men during the 1991 attack 
on that Croatian city--reportedly live freely in Serbia.
  He denied officials from the Tribunal access to Kosovo to investigate 
alleged crimes in the village of Racak, after 40 people were found 
dead, their mutilated bodies dumped in a ravine. Milosevic tried to 
claim that the victims--children, women and old men--were combatants 
and shot in a confrontation with Serbian police. To lend his story 
credence, Milosevic instead allowed a so-called independent forensic 
team from Belarus--itself caught in

[[Page 5924]]

the Stalinist past--and a group of Finns to analyze the corpses.
  Milosevic's tactic backfired. The forensic team found that the 
victims were unarmed civilians, executed in an organized massacre. Some 
of these Kosovars ``were forced to kneel before being sprayed with 
bullets,'' as the Washington Post reported it.
  Those who master-minded and perpetrated the massacres in Racak must 
face justice. Our Congress has already made very clear our view that 
Slobodan Milosevic is a war criminal and should be indicted and tried 
by the International Tribunal.
  Mr. President, United States policy toward Belgrade is and must be 
much more than the use of air strikes. The legislation before us today 
will help Secretary Albright's efforts to bring lasting peace, 
democracy and prosperity to Serbia and Montenegro, as well as to Kosovo 
and the rest of the Balkans, by helping democracy and freedom prevail 
over a brutal dictator.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 721. A bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings.


        legislation to allow media coverage of court proceedings

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, along with Senator Schumer and others, 
today I am introducing legislation that would make it easier for every 
American taxpayer to see what goes on in the federal courts that they 
fund. The bill, which would allow the photographing, electronic 
recording, broadcasting, and televising of Federal court proceedings, 
is needed to address the growing public cynicism over this branch of 
government.
  Fostering a public that is well-informed about the law, including 
penalties and offenses, will, in turn, foster a healthy judiciary. As 
Thomas Jefferson said, ``[t]he execution of the laws is more important 
than the making of them.'' Because federal court decisions are far-
reaching and often final, it is critical that judges operate in a 
manner that invites broad observation.
  In addition, allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent 
with the founding fathers' intent that trials be held before as many 
people as choose to attend. Also, the First Amendment requires that 
court proceedings be open to the public, and by extension, the news 
media. The public's right to observe them first-hand is hardly less 
important. Put differently, the Supreme Court has said, ``what 
transpires in the courtroom is public property.''
  In 1994 the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program that 
studied the effect of cameras in a select number of federal courts. 
Their findings supported the use of electronic media coverage and 
found, ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the 
proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' In 
addition to this three year study in the federal courts, we are 
fortunate to be able to draw upon the experience of state courts. A 
committee in New York established to study the effect of cameras in 
courtrooms concluded, ``Audio-visual coverage of court proceedings 
serves an important educational function, and promotes public scrutiny 
of the judicial system. The program had minimal, if any, adverse 
effects.'' 15 states specifically studied the educational benefits 
deriving from camera access and all of them determined that camera 
coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial 
system.
  The use of state courts as a testing ground for this legislation as 
well as the Federal pilot program make this very well trod ground. We 
can be extremely confident that this is the next logical step and the 
well documented benefits far outweigh the ``minimal or no detrimental 
effects''. Yet, despite the strong evidence of the successful use of 
cameras in state courtrooms, we are going the extra mile to make sure 
this works in federal courtrooms by adding a 3 year sunset provision to 
our bill. This will give us a reasonable amount of time to determine 
how the process is working and whether it should be permanent.
  The two leading arguments against cameras in federal courtrooms are 
easily countered. First, there is a fear that courtrooms will 
deteriorate into the carnival-like atmosphere of the O.J. Simpson 
trial. However, the O.J. Simpson case is obviously an exceptional and 
isolated instance. Not every court case is or need be like the Simpson 
case. It is this image of court proceedings that this bill is designed 
to dispel. Furthermore, even the minimal effects of a camera in a trial 
setting do not apply to an appellate hearing that has no jury and 
rarely requires witnesses.
  The second argument against greater public access to court 
proceedings is the legitimate concern for the witnesses' safety when 
they are required to testify. This concern has merit and is therefore 
addressed in our bill. Technological advances make it possible to 
disguise the face and voice of witnesses upon request, thus not 
compromising their safety.
  Allowing greater public access to federal court proceedings will help 
Americans fulfill their duty as citizens of a democratic nation to 
educate themselves on the workings of their government, and their right 
to observe and oversee the fundamental and critical role of the 
judiciary. The evidence compiled by 48 states and a federal study 
clearly supports this bill, the Constitution demands this bill, and the 
American people deserve this bill.
  For all these reasons, I urge others to join me and my colleagues in 
supporting our attempt to provide greater public access and 
accountability of our federal courts.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and 
Schumer in sponsoring the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.''
  Our democracy works best when our citizens are fully informed. That 
is why I have supported efforts during my time in the Senate to promote 
the goal of opening the proceedings of all three branches of our 
government. We continue to make progress in this area. Except for rare 
closed sessions, the proceedings of Congress and its Committees are 
open to the public, and carried live on cable networks. In addition, 
more Members and Committees are using the Internet and Web sites to 
make their work available to broader audiences.
  The work of Executive Branch agencies is also open for public 
scrutiny through the Freedom of Information Act, among other 
mechanisms. The FOIA has served the country well in maintaining the 
right of Americans to know what their government is doing--or not 
doing. As President Johnson said in 1966, when he signed the Freedom of 
Information Act into law:

       This legislation springs from one of our most essential 
     principles: A democracy works best when the people have all 
     the information that the security of the Nation permits.

  The work of the third, Judicial Branch, of government is also open to 
the public. Proceedings in federal courtrooms around this country are 
open to the public, and our distinguished jurists publish extensive 
opinions explaining the reasons for their judgments and decisions.
  Forty-eight states, including Vermont, permit cameras in the courts. 
This legislation simply continues this tradition of openness on the 
federal level.
  This bill permits presiding appellate and district court judges to 
allow cameras in the courtroom; they are not required to do so. At the 
same time, it protects non-party witnesses by giving them the right to 
have their voices and images obscured during their testimony. Finally, 
the bill authorizes the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
promulgate advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in 
determining the management and administration of photographing, 
recording, broadcasting or televising the proceedings. The authority 
for cameras in federal district courts sunsets in three years.
  In 1994, the Judicial Conference concluded that the time was not ripe 
to permit cameras in the federal courts, and rejected a recommendation 
of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize 
the

[[Page 5925]]

photographing, recording, and broadcasting of civil proceedings in 
federal trial and appellate courts. A majority of the Conference were 
concerned about the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses 
and jurors.
  The New York Times opined at that time, on September 22, 1994, that 
``the court system needs to reconsider its total ban on cameras, and 
Congress should consider making its own rules for cameras in the 
Federal courts.''
  I am sensitive to the concerns of the Conference, but believe this 
legislation grants to the presiding judge the authority to evaluate the 
effect of a camera on particular proceedings and witnesses, and decide 
accordingly on whether to permit the camera into the courtroom. A 
blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary limitation on the 
discretion of the presiding judge.
  Allowing a wider public than just those who are able to make time to 
visit a courtroom to see and hear judicial proceedings will allow 
Americans to evaluate for themselves the quality of justice in this 
country, and deepen their understanding of the work that goes on in our 
courtrooms. This legislation is a step in making our courtrooms and the 
justice meted out there more widely available for public scrutiny. The 
time is long overdue for federal courts to allow cameras on their 
proceedings.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Frist):
  S. 722. A bill to provide for the immediate application of certain 
orders relating to the amendment, modification, suspension, or 
revocation of certificates under chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
Code; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        Emergency Revocation Act

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been involved in the 
aviation industry for over forty years. In that time, I have logged 
roughly 8,000 flight hours and have had my share of flight challenges 
in all sorts of weather and conditions. For instance, in 1980 during a 
humanitarian mission to Dominica, I led ten airplanes through hurricane 
David to deliver medical supplies to the island. As recently as 1991 I 
piloted a Cessna 414 around the world reenacting the same flight of 
Wiley Post sixty years earlier. I mention this to establish my 
credentials as someone who is an experienced pilot. As such, I have a 
great respect for the important job that the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) does to make our air system the safest and best in 
the world. Notwithstanding my admiration for the job that the FAA does, 
I believe there are some areas of FAA enforcement that need to be 
examined. One such area is the FAA's use of ``emergency revocation''.
  After talking with certificate holders and based on my own 
observations, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to 
prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support 
such drastic action. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency 
basis, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate immediately, 
without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result 
is that the certificate holder is grounded and in most cases out of 
work until the issue is adjudicated.
  Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to 
prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support 
such drastic action. A more reasonable approach when safety is not an 
issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a non-emergency basis 
allowing the certificate holder continued use of the certificate.
  In no way do I want to suggest that the FAA should not have emergency 
revocation powers. I believe it is critical to safety that FAA have the 
ability to ground unsafe airmen or other certificate holders; however, 
I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of this 
extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly 
demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers as 
standard procedure rather than an extraordinary measure. Perhaps the 
most visible case has been Bob Hoover.
  Bob is a highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot. In 1992, 
his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions 
regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health 
from four separate sets of doctors (just one of the many tests cost Bob 
$1,700) and over the continuing objections of the federal air surgeon 
(who never examined Bob personally) his medical certificate was 
reinstated only after then Administrator David Henson intervened. 
Unfortunately, Bob is not out of the woods yet. His medical certificate 
expires each year. Unlike most airmen who can renew their medical 
certificate with a routine application and exam, Bob has to furnish the 
FAA with a report of a neurological evaluation every twelve months.
  Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. I have visited with 
other pilots who have had their licenses revoked on an emergency basis. 
Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been an American Airlines pilot for 
more than 12 years and is presently a Boeing 767 Captain. Until January 
1995, Ted had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In 
January 1995 the FAA suspended his examining authority as part of a 
larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The 
full National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) exonerated Ted in July 
1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges 
in this second revocation involved falsification of records for a 
Flight Instructor Certificate with Multiengined rating and his Air 
Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate dating back to 1979. Remember, an 
emergency revocation means you lose your certificate immediately, so in 
most cases this means the certificate holder loses his source of 
income. Fortunately in Ted's case, his employer put him on a desk job 
while the issue was adjudicated.
  Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\ year old 
violation in the Stewart case could constitute an emergency; 
especially, since Ted had not been cited for any cause in the 
intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA vigorously pursued this action. 
On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its decision in this second 
revocation and found for Ted. A couple of comments in the Stewart 
decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that ``The 
administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted 
further investigation of respondent . . .'' I find this rather 
troubling that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that 
the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is further emphasized 
with a footnote in which the Board notes:

       [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the 
     Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency 
     certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in 
     this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no 
     legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating 
     all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an 
     airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, 
     and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with 
     an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and 
     hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of 
     an extraordinary power.

  Another example is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca-
Cola Bottling Company. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being part 
of a ``ring'' of pilots who falsified type records for ``vintage'' 
aircraft.
  As in all of the cases I have reviewed, Mr. Williamson biggest 
concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came 
out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer 
(Coca-Cola) that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving ``illegal'' 
check rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he 
received an Emergency Order of Revocation. In over 30 years as an 
active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor 
had he ever been ``counseled'' by the FAA for any action or 
irregularities as a pilot, flight instructor, FAA designated pilot 
examiner.
  In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, 
except his flight instructor certificate. As in

[[Page 5926]]

the Ted Stewart case, it would appear that FAA found no real reason to 
pursue an ``emergency'' revocation.
  I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB, but I 
believe a reasonable person would conclude that in the Ted Stewart case 
the Board, believes as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency 
revocation powers by the FAA.
  This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency 
cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more 
than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 
66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB 
heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency 
revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA 
has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice.
  At my request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) did a study of 
emergency revocation actions taken by the FAA between 1990 and 1997. 
The most troubling result of the GAO study is that during time frame 
studied, 50 percent of the emergency renovations were issued four 
months to two years after the violation occurred. In only 4% of the 
cases was the emergency revocation issued within ten days or less of 
the actual violation. In fact, the median time lapse between the 
violation and the emergency order was a little over four months (132 
days).
  Clearly, at issue is ``what constitutes an emergency?'' After working 
with industry representatives, I believe we have come up with a 
balanced and prudent approach to answer that question. Today I, along 
with Senators Murkowski, Burns, Grassley, Breaux, Stevens, Crapo and 
Frist am introducing a bill which will provide a certificate holder the 
option of requesting a hearing before the NTSB within 48 hours of 
receiving an emergency revocation to determine whether or not a true 
emergency exists. The board will have to decide within five days of the 
request if an emergency exists. During the board's deliberation, the 
certificate will be suspended. Should the board decide an emergency 
does not exist, the certificate holder will be able to use his 
certificate while the issue is adjudicated. Should the board decide an 
emergency does exist, the certificate will continue to be suspended 
while the issue is adjudicated.
  Not surprisingly, Mr. President the FAA opposes this language. They 
also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served 
as the judge and jury in civil penalty actions against airmen. 
Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now appeal 
a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well because the 
NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues.
  This bill is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, 
International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots 
Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental 
Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air 
Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the 
NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association.
  In closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders 
where now none exists, without compromising aviation safety. This is a 
reasonable and prudent response to an increasing problem for 
certificate holders. I hope our colleagues will support our efforts in 
this regard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 723. A bill to provide regulatory amnesty for defendants who are 
unable to comply with federal enforceable requirements because of 
factors related to a Y2K system failure; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                   y2k regulatory amnesty act of 1999

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to 
introduce Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act of 1999. I believe this is a 
timely piece of legislation considering the current debate over the 
Year 2000 issue. Senators Bennett, Dodd, Hatch, Feinstein, and McCain 
have been working diligently on Year 2000 issues for quite some time. I 
applaud them for their efforts in dealing with such a unique and 
complex issue.
  However, as I have watched their progress and listened to their 
reports, I have noticed one significant omission in their discussions. 
Virtually nothing has been said about the potential regulatory 
nightmare that regulated entities could face as a result of a Y2K 
disruption. While the debate has been centered on getting government 
and businesses ready for the date change, very little has been said 
about how the government will actually deal with the private sector's 
problems associated with the year 2000. The last thing we need is for 
Regulatory Agencies to view a Y2K problem as an opportunity for a fine.
  As a result, I began to ask several regulated communities about their 
concerns over regulatory penalties as a result of a Y2K disruption. 
Surprisingly, many had not yet begun to think about the potential for 
regulatory problems. Instead, they have been focusing on becoming Y2K 
complaint, which is what they should be doing. However, one question 
remains; how will the federal government react to regulatory 
noncompliance due to a Y2K systems disruption?
  In response to that unanswered question, I am introducing the Y2K 
Regulatory Amnesty Act. My legislation will create a ``Y2K upset'', 
which is defined as an exception in which there is unintentional and 
temporary noncompliance beyond the reasonable control of the party. It 
will provide regulated communities with an affirmative defense from 
punitive actions from the federal government should they encounter a 
Y2K systems disruption.
  My legislation does not create a ``free pass'' for entities to 
violate federal regulations. A ``Y2K upset'' is strictly defined and 
can only be invoked if the entity has made all possible efforts to 
become Y2K complaint and meets other stringent requirements. 
Additionally, if the noncompliance would result in an immediate or 
imminent threat to public health, the defense is not applicable. For 
those individuals who do attempt to use this defense frivolously or 
fraudulently, there will be severe criminal penalties.
  Let me give you an example of how this provision will work. Assume 
that a small, local flower shop is run by a simple 3-computer network. 
The flower shop uses its computer network to manage payroll, accounts 
payable/receivable, and to track orders from customers. In an effort to 
become Y2K complaint, the flower shop hires an outside consultant to 
examine his network for signs of the Y2K bug and solve any problems 
that exist. This process costs the flower shop just over $1,000 but is 
well worth the investment considering the shop wants to be in business 
in January 2000.
  On January 1, 2000, flower shop finds that its payroll software is 
failing to operate. The shop owner contacts the software manufacturer, 
the computer manufacturer, and his consultant in order to find a 
solution. From the outset, the shop owner knows this delay means that 
he will be unable to calculate how much he owes the IRS in payroll 
taxes--not to mention, they will be late. For that small business owner 
that means a hefty penalty on top of the hassle and lost business the 
failure caused in the first place.
  Under my legislation, this small business owner would not be facing 
IRS penalties. The flower shop will still have to pay the taxes, but 
they won't be hit with a fine for a computer problem outside of their 
control.
  This is just one example of how this legislation would assist 
businesses as they attempt to become compliant. However, this 
legislation would also help many others. I have heard from several 
schools in my state that fear that if they lose federally required 
reporting information, they may face losses in federal funding. I have 
also heard from small, rural telephone cooperatives who fear that even 
a short-term Y2K-related systems disruption could result in significant 
FCC fines and penalties. The list is exhaustive. Virtually, anyone 
regulated by the federal government faces the unanswered question as to 
how the federal government will handle a Y2K systems disruption.
  There is also an added benefit to this legislation. Because this 
defense would

[[Page 5927]]

only apply to those who have made good faith efforts to become 
compliant, it will serve as an added incentive for everyone to fix 
their Y2K problems upfront.
  Some people will say this legislation is unnecessary. However, I 
believe it is prudent to define how the federal government will 
approach Y2K systems disruptions in a regulatory context. But, more 
importantly, I believe we need to establish the rules of the game in 
advance so that everyone is operating from the same page.
  In closing, I would urge each of my colleagues to become a cosponsor 
of the Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act and join with me in working to 
remediate the potential regulatory problems associated with the coming 
date change.
  Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be inserted in 
the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 723

       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 ``Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Y2K failure.--The term ``Y2K failure'' means any 
     failure by any device or system (including any computer 
     system and any microchip or integrated circuit embedded in 
     another device or product), or any software, firmware, or 
     other set or collection of processing instructions, however 
     constructed, in processing, calculating, comparing, 
     sequencing, displaying, storing, transmitting, or receiving 
     date-related data, including--
       (A) the failure to accurately administer or account for 
     transitions or comparisons from, into, and between the 20th 
     and 21st centuries, and between 1999 and 2000; or
       (B) the failure to recognize or accurately process any 
     specific date, and the failure accurately to account for the 
     status of the year 2000 as a leap year.
       (2) Y2K upset.--The term ``Y2K upset''--
       (A) means an exceptional incident involving temporary 
     noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable 
     requirements because of factors related to a Y2K failure that 
     are beyond the reasonable control of the defendant charged 
     with compliance; and
       (B) does not include--
       (i) noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable 
     requirements that constitutes or would create an imminent 
     threat to public health or safety;
       (ii) noncompliance to the extent caused by operational 
     error or negligence;
       (iii) lack of reasonable preventative maintenance; or
       (iv) lack of preparedness for Y2K.

     SEC. 3. CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF A Y2K 
                   UPSET.

       A defendant who wishes to establish the affirmative defense 
     of Y2K upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, 
     contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence 
     that--
       (1) the defendant previously made a good faith effort to 
     effectively remediate Y2K problems;
       (2) a Y2K upset occurred as a result of a Y2K system 
     failure or other Y2K emergency;
       (3) noncompliance with the applicable federally enforceable 
     requirement was unavoidable in the face of a Y2K emergency or 
     was intended to prevent the disruption of critical functions 
     or services that could result in the harm of life or 
     property;
       (4) upon identification of noncompliance the defendant 
     invoking the defense began immediate actions to remediate any 
     violation of federally enforceable requirements; and
       (5) the defendant submitted notice to the appropriate 
     Federal regulatory authority of a Y2K upset within 72 hours 
     from the time that it became aware of the upset.

     SEC. 4. GRANT OF A Y2K UPSET.

       Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Y2K upset 
     defense shall be a complete defense to any action brought as 
     a result of noncompliance with federally enforceable 
     requirements for any defendant who establishes by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the conditions set forth 
     in section 3 are met.

     SEC. 5. LENGTH OF Y2K UPSET.

       The maximum allowable length of the Y2K upset shall be not 
     more than 30 days beginning on the date of the upset unless 
     granted specific relief by the appropriate regulatory 
     authority.

     SEC. 6. VIOLATION OF A Y2K UPSET.

       Fraudulent use of the Y2K upset defense provided for in 
     this Act shall be subject to penalties provided in section 
     1001 of title 18, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 724. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that 
underground injection does not include certain activities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                    hydraulic fracturing legislation

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
with my colleagues from Alabama, Senator Sessions, that will help our 
domestic oil and gas industry by reducing one of the many regulatory 
burdens that they must comply with.
  Last year, I was informed of a case in Alabama in which the EPA was 
sued over their policy regarding underground injection and 
specifically, ``hydraulic fracturing''. This procedure is used in cases 
where product, such as gas is located in a tight geological formation 
such as a coalbed. A hole is drilled into that area and a fluid 
consisting of water, gel and sand is pumped down the wellbore into the 
formation creating a fracture zone. The gel and water are extracted 
during the initial production stage of the well while the sand is left 
to prop open the cracks in the formation.
  When Congress originally passed the safe drinking water act (SDWA) in 
1974, they intentionally left the underground protection control (UIC) 
program to the states. That act stated: ``the Administrator . . . may 
not prescribe requirements which interfere with or impede (injection 
activities associated with oil and gas production) unless such 
requirements are essential to assure that underground sources of 
drinking water will not be endangered by such injection.'' That concept 
was re-affirmed in 1980 when a provision was enacted specifically to 
recognize the adequacy of state programs, none of which required 
permitting for hydraulic fracturing in the construction or maintenance 
of oil and gas production wells.
  So, when the lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and the court ruled in 
favor of the environmental organization that filed the suit, I was 
shocked. It seemed clear to me that the intent of the law was to leave 
the regulation of this procedure to the states. I have neither heard 
nor seen anything that would lead me to the conclusion that there is 
any contamination of drinking water because of hydraulic fracturing. In 
fact, I believe the EPA agrees with me. Let me read a letter from Carol 
Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, to Mr. David A. Ludder, General 
Council for the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc (LEAF), 
the group that sued EPA over this procedure.

       There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue 
     has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of 
     underground sources of drinking water. Repeated testing, 
     conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the 
     drinking water well which was the subject of this petition 
     failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence 
     of fracturing fluids.

  That statement seems pretty straight forward and implies to me that 
EPA would be willing to work with us to solve this problem. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Senator Sessions and I, with 
assistance from Senator Chafee, have received nothing but stalling 
tactics. In late January, we drafted this language and sent it over to 
EPA hoping that we could resolve this issue quickly to provide relief 
to our producers. Unfortunately, they were not willing to work with us.
  So here we are introducing a bill that is simple and solves the 
problem. This bill is short and to the point. In less than two pages we 
clarify that hydraulic fracturing is not underground injection and re-
affirm that the administrator has the ability to determine what is 
regulated as underground injection, which is simply a clarification of 
an ability the administrator already possesses.
  It is my hope that EPA will work with us as this bill moves through 
committee and come up with a solution that will allow our oil and gas 
guys to get back to work and get EPA to focus on issues which may pose 
a more immediate threat.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill along 
with my colleague Senator Inhofe, which makes a technical correction to 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill will end a frivolous lawsuit, 
clarify the intent of Congress and allow our State regulators and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to focus on protecting underground 
drinking water.

[[Page 5928]]

  This bill clarifies the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting 
hydraulic fracturing from the definition of underground injection. 
Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in the production of coalbed 
methane. This process uses high pressure water, carbon dioxide and sand 
to create microscopic fractures in coal seams to release and extract 
methane, oil and gas. Most states in which hydraulic fracturing is 
used, including my own state of Alabama, have in place regulations to 
ensure hydraulic fracturing continues to be a technique used in a safe 
manner. This technique has been used safely by coalbed methane, oil and 
gas producers for over fifteen years and has never been attributed to 
causing even a single case of contamination to an underground drinking 
water source.
  On May 3rd of 1994, the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation 
(LEAF) submitted a Petition for Promulgation of a Rule to withdraw the 
EPA's approval for the state of Alabama's Underground Injection Control 
(UIC) program. LEAF cited a case in Alabama of alleged drinking well 
contamination to justify its lawsuit. The EPA carefully reviewed this 
petition and on May 5th of 1995 the Administrator of the EPA, Carol 
Browner wrote to LEAF and stated ``based on that review, I have 
determined that Alabama's implementation of the UIC program is 
consistent with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act''. 
Administrator Browner continued ``There is no evidence that the 
hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or 
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water''. I ask 
unanimous consent that a complete copy of the text of that letter be 
inserted into the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SESSIONS: This single case in Alabama which initiated the LEAF 
lawsuit was investigated by three regulatory agencies; the State Oil 
and Gas Board of Alabama, the Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. None of the 
three regulatory agencies could find any contamination attributable to 
hydraulic fracturing activities or levels of any contaminate exceeding 
Safe Drinking Water Act standards. In fact, a nationwide search for 
cases of contamination attributed to hydraulic fracturing was conducted 
by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Ground Water Protection 
Council. Not a single case of contamination was discovered.
  As a result of the baseless lawsuit brought by the Legal 
Environmental Assistance Foundation, the EPA has begun the process of 
stripping away the authority of the State of Alabama to implement its 
Underground Injection Control program. Both the EPA and the state of 
Alabama must now spend precious resources, which could otherwise be 
used to address real drinking water problems, to establish federal 
regulations for a technique which poses no environmental threat. The 
impact of this action will undoubtably be felt by the people in Alabama 
and across the nation who are threatened by and in many cases, 
experiencing the effects of ground water contamination as regulating 
agencies waste their resources to address this non-problem.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this technical fix to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.

                               Exhibit 1


                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 1995.
     David A. Ludder, Esq.,
     General Counsel, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, 
         Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
       Dear Mr. Ludder: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     has received and carefully reviewed your May 3, 1994, 
     Petition for Promulgation of a Rule Withdrawing Approval of 
     Alabama's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Based 
     on that review, I have determined that Alabama's 
     implementation of its UIC Program is consistent with the 
     requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300h, et seq.) and EPA's UIC regulations (40 CFR Part 
     145). EPA does not regulate--and does not believe it is 
     legally required to regulate--the hydraulic fracturing of 
     methane gas production wells under its UIC Program.
       There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue 
     has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of 
     underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Repeated 
     testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of 
     the drinking water well which was the subject of this 
     petition failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the 
     presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for 
     drinking water quality and no constituents exceeding drinking 
     water standards were detected. Moreover, given the horizontal 
     and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the 
     closest methane gas production wells, the possibility of 
     contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is 
     extremely remote. Hydraulic fracturing is closely regulated 
     by the Alabama State Oil and Gas Board, which requires that 
     operators obtain authorization prior to all fracturing 
     activities.
       Accordingly, I have decided to deny your petition. Enclosed 
     you will find a detailed response to each contention in your 
     petition, which further explains the basis for this denial.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner,
                                                    Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 725. A bill to preserve and protect coral reefs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                THE CORAL REEF CONSERVATION ACT OF 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef 
Conservation Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator McCain, Chairman of 
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is joining me as a 
cosponsor in this effort to protect, sustain, and restore the health of 
coral reef ecosystems.
  Coral reefs are among the world's most biologically diverse and 
productive ecosystems. Reefs serve as essential habitat for many marine 
organisms, enhancing commercial fisheries and stimulating tourism. They 
provide protection to coastal areas from storm surges and erosion, and 
offer many untold potential benefits such as new pharmaceuticals, some 
of which are presently being identified, developed, and tested. 
Unfortunately, coral reef ecosystems are in decline.
  In 1998, coral reefs around the world appear to have suffered the 
most extensive and severe bleaching damage and subsequent mortality in 
modern times. Reefs in at least 60 countries were affected, and in some 
areas, more than 70 percent of the corals died off. These impacts have 
been attributed to the warmest ocean temperatures in 600 years. In 
addition to these impacts, however, it is estimated that 58 percent of 
the world's reefs are threatened by human activity such as 
inappropriate coastal development, destructive fishing practices, and 
other forms of overexploitation.
  As a result of these stressors, coral reef habitat has been damaged 
and destroyed. Diseases of coral and reef-based organisms are expanding 
rapidly. Most of the diseases being tracked have only recently been 
discovered and are not widely understood. These serious problems 
highlight the need for more research to unravel the complex interactive 
effects between natural and human-induced stressors on coral reefs, and 
for more conservation and management activities.
  The United States is not immune to these problems. Large coral reef 
systems exist in Florida, Hawaii, Texas, and various U.S. territories 
in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These reefs produce significant 
economic benefits for surrounding communities. In Florida, for example, 
the reefs contribute approximately 1.6 billion dollars annually to the 
state economy. But despite these clear benefits, U.S. reefs suffer from 
some of the same problems that affect reefs in other parts of the 
world.
  Mr. President, this bill authorizes $3,800,000 in each of fiscal 
years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for a Coral Reef Conservation Program in the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide conservation 
and research grants to states, U.S. territories, and qualified non-
governmental institutions. Eligible conservation projects will focus on 
the promotion of sustainable development and work to ensure the 
effective, long-term conservation of coral reefs. Potential research 
projects will address use conflicts and develop sound scientific 
information on the condition of and threats to coral reef ecosystems.

[[Page 5929]]

  The bill also authorizes NOAA to enter into an agreement with a 
qualified non-governmental organization to create a trust fund that 
will match private contributions to federal contributions and provide 
additional funding for worthy conservation and research projects. 
Through this mechanism, federal dollars can be used to leverage more 
dollars from the private sector for grants.
  In addition, this bill authorizes $200,000 for each of fiscal years 
2000, 2001, and 2002 for emergency assistance, which would be be 
provided through grants to address unforeseen or disaster-related 
problems pertaining to coral reefs.
  Based on early reports, the repercussions of the 1998 mass bleaching 
and mortality events will be far-reaching in time and economic impact. 
This development, along with the continuing pressures from other 
sources, demonstrates the need for an increase in the effort to protect 
our coral reefs. The legislation I am introducing today provides a 
reasonable, cooperative vehicle to address these concerns.
  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. 725

       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 ``Coral Reef Conservation Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are:
       (1) to preserve, sustain, and restore the health of coral 
     reef ecosystems;
       (2) to assist in the conservation and protection of coral 
     reefs by supporting conservation programs;
       (3) to provide financial resources for those programs; and
       (4) to establish a formal mechanism for collecting and 
     allocating monetary donations from the private sector to be 
     used for coral reef conservation projects.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (2) Coral.--The term ``coral'' means species of the phylum 
     Cnidaria, including--
       (A) all species of the orders Antipatharia (black corals), 
     Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), 
     Stolonifera (organpipe corals and others), Alcyanacea (soft 
     corals), and Coenothecalia (blue coral), of the class 
     Anthozoa; and
       (B) all species of the order Hydrocorallina (fire corals 
     and hydrocorals), of the class Hydrozoa.
       (3) Coral reef.--The term ``coral reef'' means those 
     species (including reef plants), habitats, and other natural 
     resources associated with any reefs or shoals composed 
     primarily of corals within all maritime areas and zones 
     subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States 
     (e.g., Federal, State, territorial, or commonwealth waters), 
     including in the south Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, 
     and Pacific Ocean.
       (4) Corals and coral products.--The term ``corals and coral 
     products'' means any living or dead specimens, parts, or 
     derivatives, or any product containing specimens, parts, or 
     derivatives, of any species referred to in paragraph (2).
       (5) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of methods and procedures necessary to preserve or sustain 
     corals and species associated with coral reefs as diverse, 
     viable, and self-perpetuating coral reefs, including all 
     activities associated with resource management, such as 
     assessment, conservation, protection, restoration, 
     sustainable use, and management of habitat; habitat 
     monitoring; assistance in the development of management 
     strategies for marine protected areas and marine resources 
     consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); law 
     enforcement; conflict resolution initiatives; and community 
     outreach and education.
       (6) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means any 
     qualified non-profit organization that promotes coral reef 
     conservation.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.

     SEC. 4. CORAL REEF CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary, through the Administrator and 
     subject to the availability of funds, shall provide grants of 
     financial assistance for projects for the conservation of 
     coral reefs, hereafter called coral conservation projects, 
     for proposals approved by the Administrator in accordance 
     with this section.
       (b) Matching Requirements.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Federal funds for 
     any coral conservation project under this section may not 
     exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such project. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the non-Federal share of project 
     costs may be provided by in-kind contributions and other 
     noncash support.
       (2) The Administrator may waive all or part of the matching 
     requirement under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the project costs are $25,000 or less; or
       (B) the Administrator determines that no reasonable means 
     are available through which applicant can meet the matching 
     requirement and the probable benefit of such project 
     outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement.
       (c) Eligibility.--Any relevant natural resource management 
     authority of a State or territory of the United States or 
     other government authority with jurisdiction over coral reefs 
     or whose activities directly or indirectly affect coral 
     reefs, or educational or non-governmental institutions with 
     demonstrated expertise in the conservation of coral reefs, 
     may submit to the Administrator a coral conservation proposal 
     submitted under subsection (e) of this section.
       (d) Geographic and Biological Diversity.--The Administrator 
     shall ensure that funding for grants awarded under subsection 
     (b) of this section during a fiscal year are distributed in 
     the following manner--
       (1) no less than 40 percent of funds available shall be 
     awarded for coral conservation projects in the Pacific Ocean;
       (2) no less than 40 percent of the funds available shall be 
     awarded for coral conservation projects in the Atlantic 
     Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea; and
       (3) remaining funds shall be awarded for projects that 
     address emerging priorities or threats, including 
     international priorities or threats, identified by the 
     Administrator in consultation with the Coral Reef Task Force 
     under subsection (i).
       (e) Project Proposals.--Each proposal for a grant under 
     this section shall include the following:
       (1) The name of the individual or entity responsible for 
     conducting the project.
       (2) A succinct statement of the purposes of the project.
       (3) A description of the qualifications of the individuals 
     who will conduct the project.
       (4) An estimate of the funds and time required to complete 
     the project.
       (5) Evidence of support of the project by appropriate 
     representatives of States or territories of the United States 
     or other government jurisdictions in which the project will 
     be conducted.
       (6) Information regarding the source and amount of matching 
     funding available to the applicant, as appropriate.
       (7) A description of how the project meets one or more of 
     the criteria in subsection (g) of this section.
       (8) Any other information the Administrator considers to be 
     necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project for 
     funding under this title.
       (f) Project Review and Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall review each final 
     coral conservation project proposal to determine if it meets 
     the criteria set forth in subsection (g).
       (2) Review; approval or disapproval.--Not later than 3 
     months after receiving a final project proposal under this 
     section, the Administrator shall--
       (A) request written comments on the proposal from each 
     State or territorial agency of the United States or other 
     government jurisdiction, including the relevant regional 
     fishery management councils established under the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1801 et seq.), or any National Marine Sanctuary, with 
     jurisdiction or management authority over coral reefs or 
     coral reef ecosystems in the area where the project is to be 
     conducted, including the extent to which the project is 
     consistent with locally-established priorities;
       (B) for projects costing more than $25,000, provide for the 
     regional, merit-based peer review of the proposal and require 
     standardized documentation of that peer review;
       (C) after considering any written comments and 
     recommendations based on the reviews under subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B), approve or disapprove the proposal; and
       (D) provide written notification of that approval or 
     disapproval to the person who submitted the proposal, and 
     each of those States, territories, and other government 
     jurisdictions.
       (g) Criteria for Approval.--The Administrator may approve a 
     final project proposal under this section based on the extent 
     that the project will enhance the conservation of coral reefs 
     by--
       (1) implementing coral conservation programs which promote 
     sustainable development and ensure effective, long-term 
     conservation of coral reef;
       (2) addressing the conflicts arising from the use of 
     environments near coral reefs or from the use of corals, 
     species associated with coral reefs, and coral products;
       (3) enhancing compliance with laws that prohibit or 
     regulate the taking of corals, species associated with coral 
     reefs, and coral products or regulate the use and management 
     of coral reef ecosystems;

[[Page 5930]]

       (4) developing sound scientific information on the 
     condition of coral reef ecosystems or the threats to such 
     ecosystems;
       (5) promoting cooperative projects on coral reef 
     conservation that involve affected local communities, non-
     governmental organizations, or others in the private sector; 
     or
       (6) increasing public knowledge and awareness of coral reef 
     ecosystems and issues regarding their long-term conservation.
       (h) Project Reporting.--Each grantee under this section 
     shall provide periodic reports, as specified by the 
     Administrator. Each report shall include all information 
     required by the Secretary for evaluating the progress and 
     success of the project.
       (i) Coral Reef Task Force.--The Administrator may consult 
     with the Coral Reef Task Force established under Executive 
     Order 13089 (June 11, 1998), to obtain guidance in 
     establishing coral conservation project priorities under this 
     section.
       (j) Implementation Guidelines.--Within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate necessary guidelines for implementing this 
     section. In developing those guidelines, the Administrator 
     shall consult with regional and local entities involved in 
     setting priorities for conservation of coral reefs.

     SEC. 5. CORAL REEF CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Fund.--The Administrator may enter into an agreement 
     with an organization authorizing such organization to 
     receive, hold and administer funds received pursuant to this 
     section. The organization shall invest, reinvest and 
     otherwise administer the funds and maintain such funds and 
     any interest or revenues earned in a separate interest 
     bearing account, hereafter referred to as the Fund, 
     established by such organization solely to support 
     partnerships between the public and private sectors that 
     further the purposes of this title.
       (b) Authorization to Solicit Donations.--Consistent with 16 
     U.S.C. 3703, and pursuant to the agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a) of this section, an organization may accept, 
     receive, solicit, hold administer and use any gift or 
     donation to further the purposes of this title. Such funds 
     shall be deposited and maintained in the Fund established by 
     an organization under subsection (a) of this section.
       (c) Review of Performance.--The Administrator shall conduct 
     a continuing review of the grant program administered by an 
     organization under this section. Each review shall include a 
     written assessment concerning the extent to which that 
     organization has implemented the goals and requirements of 
     this section.
       (d) Administration.--Under the agreement entered into 
     pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator 
     may transfer funds appropriated to carry out this Act to an 
     organization. Amounts received by an organization under this 
     subsection may be used for matching, in whole or in part, 
     contributions (whether in currency, services, or property) 
     made to the organization by private persons and State and 
     local government agencies.

     SEC. 6. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.

       The Administrator may make grants to any State, local or 
     territorial government agency with jurisdiction over coral 
     reefs for emergencies to address unforeseen or disaster 
     related circumstance pertaining to coral reefs or coral reef 
     ecosystems.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $3,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 
     2002 for grants under section 4, which may remain available 
     until expended.
       (2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 
     2002 for emergency assistance under section 6.
       (b) Use of Amounts Appropriated.--Not more than 5 percent 
     of the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) may be used 
     by the Secretary, through the Administrator, for 
     administration of this title.
       (c) Limitation.--Only amounts appropriated to implement 
     this title are subject to its requirements.

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999. The bill that I have sponsored, 
along with Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Committee's 
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, represents strong and balanced 
environmental policy. I wish to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership 
in this area. This bill is a positive step forward to improve the 
conditions of our coral reefs and the many types of life that live in 
and among these reefs.
  The bill is designed to build partnerships with local and State 
entities to facilitate coral reef conservation. It creates a 
competitive matching-grant program which would provide funding for 
local and State governments and qualified non-profit organizations 
which have experience in coral reef monitoring, research, conservation, 
and public education projects. The bill requires that federal funds 
provide no more than 50 percent of the cost of the project. However, it 
also helps local communities that do not have the ability to raise 
sufficient matching funds. Therefore, the matching requirement may be 
waived for qualified proposals under $25,000.
  Under the bill that Senator Snowe and I have introduced today, the 
matching-grant program will maximize funding for important coral reef 
conservation projects. Our coral reefs are certainly in need of this 
type of funding. Indeed, coral reefs are the foundation of one of the 
Earth's most productive and diverse ecosystems, providing food and 
shelter for at least one million different types of animals, plants and 
other sea life. Coastal communities realize the benefit of coral reefs 
through enhanced fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, and the 
development of medicines used to fight cancer and produce antibiotics 
and pain relievers. Unfortunately, in 1998, coral reefs suffered some 
of the most extensive damage ever recorded. What caused so much damage? 
There are no certain answers. Record-breaking ocean temperatures and a 
severe El Nino event are the most likely culprits. What we do know is 
that these global events triggered massive die-offs of coral reefs 
through a process known as coral ``bleaching''. In essence, bleaching 
occurs when coral reefs are exposed to environmental stress, including 
elevated sea temperatures. This results in the loss of an essential 
food source, so the coral--a living creature--may starve to death. This 
coral reef bleaching makes the identification of the most injured reefs 
fairly obvious. The difficult task then becomes what can be done to 
prevent such a loss in the future and what, if anything, can be done to 
revive already damaged reefs?
  I think this bill is a very good starting point. With this 
legislation, Senator Snowe and I will put in place a way to provide 
responsible and effective funding for coral reef conservation, 
monitoring, research, and public education. One half of our country's 
population lives and works in a coastal community. This bill is good 
for the environment and good for the many Americans who depend on the 
ocean for their livelihoods. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 726. A bill to establish a matching grant program to help State 
and local jurisdictions purchase bullet resistant equipment for use by 
law enforcement departments; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


 Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act 
                                of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
help our nation's state and local law enforcement officers acquire the 
bullet resistant equipment they need to protect themselves from would-
be killers.
  I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Torricelli, as an original 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  This bill, the ``Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police 
Protective Equipment Act of 1999,'' is based on S. 2253, which I 
introduced in the 105th Congress. This bill is named in memory of Dale 
Claxton, a Cortez, Colorado, police officer who was fatally shot 
through the windshield of his patrol car last year. A bullet resistant 
windshield could have saved his life.
  Unfortunately, incidents like this are far from isolated. All across 
our nation law enforcement officers, whether in hot pursuit, driving 
through dangerous neighborhoods, or pulled over on the side of the road 
behind an automobile, are at risk of being shot through their 
windshields. We must do what we can to prevent these kinds of tragedies 
as better, lighter and more affordable types of bullet resistant glass 
and other equipment become available. For the purposes of this bill I 
use the technically more accurate term ``bullet resistant'' instead of 
the more commonplace ``bullet proof'' since, even though we all wish 
they could be, few things are truly ``bullet proof.''
  While I served as a deputy sheriff in Sacramento County, California, 
I became personally aware of the inherent

[[Page 5931]]

dangers law enforcement officers encounter each day on the front lines. 
Now that I serve as a U.S. senator here in Washington, DC, I believe we 
should do what we can to help our law enforcement officers protect 
themselves as they risk their lives while protecting the American 
people from violent criminals.
  One important way we can do this is to help them acquire bullet 
resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held bullet 
resistant shields and other life saving bullet resistant equipment. 
This assistance is especially crucial for small local jurisdictions 
that often lack the funds needed to provide their officers with the 
life saving bullet resistant equipment they need.
  The Officer Dale Claxton bill builds upon the successes of the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 1605, which I introduced in 
the 105th Congress and the president signed into law last June. This 
program provides matching grants to state and local law enforcement 
agencies to help them purchase body armor for their officers. This bill 
builds upon this worthy program by expanding it to help them acquire 
additional types of bullet resistant equipment.
  The bill I introduce today has four main components. The first part 
authorizes continued funding for the current Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act program at $25 million per year.
  The second and central part of this legislation authorizes a new $40 
million matching grant program to help state, local, tribal and other 
small law enforcement agencies acquire bullet resistant equipment such 
as bullet resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held 
bullet resistant shields and other life saving equipment.
  The third component of this bill, as promoted by Senator Torricelli, 
would authorize a $25 million matching grant program for the purchase 
of video cameras for use in law enforcement vehicles.
  These three matching grants are authorized for fiscal years 2000 
through 2002 and would be allocated by the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
according to a formula that ensures fair distribution for all states, 
local communities, tribes and U.S. territories. To help ensure that 
these matching grants get to the jurisdictions that need them the most 
the bureau is directed to make at least half of the funds available to 
those smaller jurisdictions whose budgets are the most financially 
constrained.
  The final key part of this bill provides the Justice Department's 
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) with $3 million over 3 years to 
conduct an expedited research and development program to speed up the 
deployment of new bullet resistant technologies and equipment. The 
development of new bullet resistant materials in the next few years 
could be as revolutionary in the next few years as Kevlar was for body 
armor in the 1970s. Exciting new technologies such as bonded acrylic, 
polymers, polycarbons, aluminized material and transparent ceramics 
promise to provide for lighter, more versatile and hopefully less 
expensive bullet resistant equipment.
  The Officer Dale Claxton bill also directs the NIJ to inventory 
existing technologies in the private sector, in surplus military 
property, and in use by other countries and to evaluate, develop 
standards, establish testing guidelines, and promote technology 
transfer.
  Under the bill, the Institute would give priority in testing and 
feasibility studies to law enforcement partnerships developed in 
coordination with existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
(HIDTAs).
  Our nation's state, local and tribal law enforcement officers 
regularly put their lives in harm's way and deserve to have access to 
the bullet resistant equipment they need. The Officer Dale Claxton bill 
will both get life saving bullet resistant equipment deployed into the 
field where it is needed and accelerate the development of new 
lifesaving bullet resistant technologies. I urge my colleagues to 
support passage of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 726

       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 ``Officer Dale Claxton Bullet 
     Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Officer Dale Claxton of the Cortez, Colorado, Police 
     Department was shot and killed by bullets that passed through 
     the windshield of his police car after he stopped a stolen 
     truck, and his life may have been saved if his police car had 
     been equipped with bullet resistant equipment;
       (2) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed 
     in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law 
     enforcement officer in the United States had access to 
     additional bullet resistant equipment;
       (3) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law 
     enforcement officers in the United States were feloniously 
     killed in the line of duty;
       (4) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the 
     risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not 
     wearing bullet resistant equipment, such as an armor vest, is 
     14 times higher than for officers wearing an armor vest;
       (5) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
     resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 
     law enforcement officers in the United States; and
       (6) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law 
     Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian 
     country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national 
     crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety 
     crisis in Indian country''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to save lives of 
     law enforcement officers by helping State, local, and tribal 
     law enforcement agencies provide officers with bullet 
     resistant equipment and video cameras.

     SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLET 
                   RESISTANT EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
       (1) by striking the part designation and part heading and 
     inserting the following:

         ``PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

             ``Subpart A--Grant Program For Armor Vests'';

       (2) by striking ``this part'' each place that term appears 
     and inserting ``this subpart''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

       ``Subpart B--Grant Program For Bullet Resistant Equipment

     ``SEC. 2511. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of 
     local government, and Indian tribes to purchase bullet 
     resistant equipment for use by State, local, and tribal law 
     enforcement officers.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section 
     shall be--
       ``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe, and
       ``(2) used for the purchase of bullet resistant equipment 
     for law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the 
     grantee.
       ``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this subpart, the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance may give preferential consideration, if feasible, 
     to an application from a jurisdiction that--
       ``(1) has the greatest need for bullet resistant equipment 
     based on the percentage of law enforcement officers in the 
     department who do not have access to a vest;
       ``(2) has a violent crime rate at or above the national 
     average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
     or
       ``(3) has not received a block grant under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant program described inder the heading 
     `Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance' of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-119).
       ``(d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all eligible applications 
     submitted by any State or unit of local government within 
     such State for a grant under this section have been funded, 
     such State, together with grantees within the State (other 
     than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year 
     under this section not less than 0.50 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to 
     this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall 
     each be allocated .25 percent.
       ``(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe may not receive more than 5 
     percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year 
     for grants under this section, except that a State, together 
     with the grantees within the State may not receive more than

[[Page 5932]]

     20 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal 
     year for grants under this section.
       ``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a 
     program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 50 percent. Any funds appropriated by Congress for the 
     activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement 
     functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-
     Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this 
     subsection.
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--At least half of the funds 
     available under this subpart shall be awarded to units of 
     local government with fewer than 100,000 residents.

     ``SEC. 2512. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart, 
     the chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or 
     Indian tribe shall submit an application to the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Assitance in such form and containing 
     such information as the Director may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this subpart, the Director of the Bureau 
     of Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement this section (including the information that must 
     be included and the requirements that the States, units of 
     local government, and Indian tribes must meet) in submitting 
     the applications required under this section.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--A unit of local government that 
     receives funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
     program (described under the heading `Violent Crime Reduction 
     Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 
     104-119)) during a fiscal year in which it submits an 
     application under this subpart shall not be eligible for a 
     grant under this subpart unless the chief executive officer 
     of such unit of local government certifies and provides an 
     explanation to the Director that the unit of local government 
     considered or will consider using funding received under the 
     block grant program for any or all of the costs relating to 
     the purchase of bullet resistant equipment, but did not, or 
     does not expect to use such funds for such purpose.

     ``SEC. 2513. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart--
       ``(1) the term `equipment' means windshield glass, car 
     panels, shields, and protective gear;
       ``(2) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands;
       ``(3) the term `unit of local government' means a county, 
     municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, or 
     other unit of general government below the State level;
       ``(4) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in 
     section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)); and
       ``(5) the term `law enforcement officer' means any officer, 
     agent, or employee of a State, unit of local government, or 
     Indian tribe authorized by law or by a government agency to 
     engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or 
     investigation of any violation of criminal law, or authorized 
     by law to supervise sentenced criminal offenders.

              ``Subpart C--Grant Program For Video Cameras

     ``SEC. 2521. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of 
     local government, and Indian tribes to purchase video cameras 
     for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 
     in law enforcement vehicles.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section 
     shall be--
       ``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe; and
       ``(2) used for the purchase of video cameras for law 
     enforcement vehicles in the jurisdiction of the grantee.
       ``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this subpart, the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance may give preferential consideration, if feasible, 
     to an application from a jurisdiction that--
       ``(1) has the greatest need for video cameras, based on the 
     percentage of law enforcement officers in the department do 
     not have access to a law enforcement vehicle equipped with a 
     video camera;
       ``(2) has a violent crime rate at or above the national 
     average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
     or
       ``(3) has not received a block grant under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant program described under the heading 
     `Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance' of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-119).
       (d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all eligible applications 
     submitted by any State or unit of local government within 
     such State for a grant under this section have been funded, 
     such State, together with grantees within the State (other 
     than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year 
     under this section not less than 0.50 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to 
     this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall 
     each be allocated 0.25 percent.
       ``(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe may not receive more than 5 
     percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year 
     for grants under this section, except that a State, together 
     with the grantees within the State may not receive more than 
     20 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal 
     year for grants under this section.
       ``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a 
     program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 50 percent. Any funds appropriated by Congress for the 
     activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement 
     functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-
     Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this 
     subsection.
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--At least half of the funds 
     available under this subpart shall be awarded to units of 
     local government with fewer than 100,000 residents.

     ``SEC. 2522. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart, 
     the chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or 
     Indian tribe shall submit an application to the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance in such form and containing 
     such information as the Director may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this subpart, the Director of the Bureau 
     of Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement this section (including the information that must 
     be included and the requirements that the States, units of 
     local government, and Indian tribes must meet) in submitting 
     the applications required under this section.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--A unit of local government that 
     receives funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
     program (described under the heading `Violent Crime Reduction 
     Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 
     105-119)) during a fiscal year in which it submits an 
     application under this subpart shall not be eligible for a 
     grant under this subpart unless the chief executive officer 
     of such unit of local government certifies and provides an 
     explanation to the Director that the unit of local government 
     considered or will consider using funding received under the 
     block grant program for any or all of the costs relating to 
     the purchase of video cameras, but did not, or does not 
     expect to use such funds for such purpose.

     ``SEC. 2523. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart--
       ``(1) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in 
     section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e));
       ``(2) the term `law enforcement officer' means any officer, 
     agent, or employee of a State, unit of local government, or 
     Indian tribe authorized by law or by a government agency to 
     engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or 
     investigation of any violation of criminal law, or authorized 
     by law to supervise sentenced criminal offenders;
       ``(3) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands; and
       ``(4) the term `unit of local government' means a county, 
     municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, or 
     other unit of general government below the State level.''.
       (b) Authoriation of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (23) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(23) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part Y--
       ``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002 for grants under subpart A of that part;
       ``(B) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002 for grants under subpart B of that part; and
       ``(C) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002 for grants under subpart C of that part.''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       In the case of any equipment or products that may be 
     authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
     using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.

     SEC. 5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 202 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3722) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page 5933]]

       ``(e) Bullet Resistant Technology Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--The institute is authorized to--
       ``(A) conduct research and otherwise work to develop new 
     bullet resistant technologies (i.e., acrylic, polymers, 
     aluminized material, and transparent ceramics) for use in 
     police equipment (including windshield glass, car panels, 
     shields, and protective gear);
       ``(B) inventory bullet resistant technologies used in the 
     private sector, in surplus military property, and by foreign 
     countries;
       ``(C) promulgate relevant standards for, and conduct 
     technical and operational testing and evaluation of, bullet 
     resistant technology and equipment, and otherwise facilitate 
     the use of that technology in police equipment.
       ``(2) Priority.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Institute shall give priority in testing and engineering 
     surveys to law enforcement partnerships developed in 
     coordination with High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $3,000,000 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 727. A bill to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement 
officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms 
and to allow States to enter into compacts to recognize other States' 
concealed weapons permits; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________