[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9893-9907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 1063. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a special rule for long existing home health agencies with 
partial fiscal year 1994 cost reports in calculating the per 
beneficiary limits under the interim payment system for such agencies; 
to the Committee on Finance.


         medicare home health technical corrections legislation

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would make a technical correction to a provision of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 that is causing great unfairness to long-established 
home health agencies and their patients. It would provide for a special 
rule for long-existing home health agencies that have been classified 
as ``new'' home health agencies for purposes of the Interim Payment 
System (IPS) simply because they happened to change the ending date of 
their fiscal year, and, as a consequence, do not have a full 12-month 
cost reporting period in federal fiscal year 1994.
  Under the complicated formula for the Medicare Interim Payment System 
for home health agencies, Medicare determines a limit for most 
established agencies using a formula that recognizes the agency's 
historical costs and blends them, in a proportion of 75 percent to 25 
percent, with regional norms. For new home health agencies without a 
historic record of cost reports, the per-beneficiary limit is set at 
the national median.
  In defining the difference between new and existing agencies, the 
Administration focused on fiscal year 1994 and established a general 
rule that the national median per-beneficiary limit would apply to 
``new providers and providers without a 12-month reporting period 
ending in fiscal year 1994.'' Congress did, however, specifically 
exclude from the ``new'' category any home health agency that had 
changed its name or corporate structure.
  Nevertheless, one of the home health agencies in my State --Hancock 
County HomeCare--has been classified as a ``new'' home health agency, 
even though it has been serving the people of rural Down East Maine for 
more than 60 years. I am sure that there are other long-standing home 
health agencies across the country that have found themselves in a 
similar situation as a consequence of this provision.
  Hancock County HomeCare is a division of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital, 
a charitable, tax-exempt hospital. Hancock County HomeCare emerged as a 
result of a merger of the hospital with the Four Town Nursing Service 
and Bar Harbor Public Health Nursing, both non-profit home health 
agencies that have provided uninterrupted service to residents of 
Hancock County, Maine for more than 60 years. The unified agency, which 
provides skilled home nursing and therapies to residents of 36 towns, 
has been part of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital since 1981.
  Despite its 60-year history of service to the community, Hancock 
County HomeCare has been classified as a ``new'' agency simply because 
it happened to change the ending date of its fiscal year during 1994, 
when Blue Hill Memorial and its affiliate changed theirs. Solely 
because it changed its fiscal year from a period ending June 30 to a 
period ending March 31, this 60-year old agency is being treated as a 
new agency by HCFA. Given the care taken by Congress to exclude name 
changes and corporate structure changes from the definition of a 
``new'' agency, I simply do not believe that it was our intent to visit 
radically different treatment upon an agency that simply changed its 
financial reporting practices, but otherwise has a continuous history 
of operation and is fully able to provide 12 months of reliable data in 
accordance with Medicare cost reporting requirements.
  I believe that the statute gives the Health Care Financing 
Administration sufficient discretion to deal with this situation 
administratively. Unfortunately, however, HCFA does not agree with that 
interpretation and insists that further legislative action is necessary 
if Hancock County HomeCare is to be considered an ``old'' agency for 
purposes of the Interim Payment System.
  The legislation that I am introducing today to clarify the law was 
prepared with technical assistance from HCFA. Essentially, the bill 
would provide for a special rule for home care agencies that were in 
existence and had an active Medicare provider number prior to fiscal 
year 1980, but which had less than a 12-month cost reporting period in 
fiscal year 1994 because the agency changed the end date of its cost 
reporting period in that year. For these agencies, Medicare could, upon 
the request of the agency, use the agency's partial-year cost report 
from fiscal year 1994 to determine the agency-specific portion of the 
per beneficiary limit. As a consequence, the agency could then be 
treated as an ``old'' agency for purposes of the Interim Payment 
System.
  Mr. President, this legislation is simply a technical correction to 
address a specific problem that Congress clearly did not intend to 
create when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The legislation 
is narrowly drafted and, in all likelihood, will not affect more than a 
few home health agencies, but it will make a critical difference in the 
ability of those agencies to continue to serve their elderly clients.
  Home health agencies across the country, however, are experiencing 
acute financial problems due to other problems with a critically-flawed 
payment system that effectively penalizes our most cost-efficient 
agencies. These agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to cope 
with cash-flow problems, which inhibit their ability to deliver much-
needed care. As many as twenty organizations in Maine have either 
closed or are no longer providing home care services because their 
reimbursement levels under Medicare fell so far short of their actual 
operating costs. Other agencies are laying off staff or are declining 
to accept new patients with more serious health problems. The real 
losers in this situation are our seniors, since cuts of this magnitude 
cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting patient care.
  Moreover, these payment problems have been exacerbated by a number of 
new regulatory requirements imposed by HCFA, including the 
implementation of OASIS, sequential billing, medical review, and IPS 
overpayment recoupment. I will soon be introducing legislation to 
provide some relief for these beleaguered home health agencies and also 
plan to hold a hearing next month in the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations to examine the combined effect that these payment 
reductions coupled with the multiple new regulatory requirements have

[[Page 9894]]

had on home health agencies' ability to meet their patients' needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation providing a special rule for long-existing home health 
agencies with partial fiscal year 1994 cost reports be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1063

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

     SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR LONG EXISTING HOME HEALTH 
                   AGENCIES WITH PARTIAL FISCAL YEAR 1994 COST 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(x)(I) If requested by an applicable agency, the 
     limitation under clause (v) shall be determined for such 
     agency by substituting in subclause (I) of that clause `the 
     reasonable costs (including nonroutine medical supplies) for 
     the agency's cost report for the most recent partial cost 
     reporting period ending in fiscal year 1994' for `the 
     reasonable costs (including nonroutine medical supplies) for 
     the agency's 12-month cost reporting period ending during 
     fiscal year 1994'.
       ``(II) In this clause, the term `applicable agency' means 
     an agency that--
       ``(aa) was in existence prior to fiscal year 1980;
       ``(bb) had an active medicare provider number prior to such 
     date; and
       ``(cc) had less than a 12-month cost reporting period 
     ending in fiscal year 1994 because such agency changed the 
     end date of its cost reporting period during fiscal year 
     1994.
       ``(III) The limitation determined for an applicable agency 
     pursuant to this clause shall be excluded from any 
     calculation under this subparagraph of--
       ``(aa) a standardized regional average of costs; or
       ``(bb) a national median of limits.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 1064. A bill to provide for the location of the National Museum of 
the United States Army; to the Committee on Armed Services.


       national museum of the united states army site act of 1999

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that 
Washington, DC possesses one of the highest concentrations of museums, 
art galleries, research institutions, monuments, and memorials to be 
found anywhere in the world. This is a city where we chronicle our 
history, honor our heroes, and introduce people from around the world 
to the ``American experience''.
  Each year millions of people travel to Washington to visit the many 
attractions that are located within the capital city. Some of the most 
popular destinations for visitors are the many excellent museums and 
galleries, located where individuals are able to gain a knowledge and 
perspective about the United States that they may not have possessed 
before their trip to Washington.
  Sadly, one aspect of American history which is not told very well is 
that of the United States Army. While many of the museums in the 
Capital area address military history in general terms, the region 
lacks a museum dedicated solely to the purpose of telling the story of 
our Army. This absence is a discredit to those interested in American 
history as the story of our Army is the story of our Nation, and quite 
obviously the reverse is true. It is also a discredit to the millions 
who have served as soldiers, theirs is a story well worth telling to 
others.
  The United States is a Nation born of battle, as a matter of fact, 
the Army is older than our country. The Army was formed in 1775, while 
the United States was formed in 1776. At every critical juncture of the 
history of the United States, we find the brave soldiers of the Army. 
Whether it was earning our freedom from a colonial power; the mapping 
expedition of Lewis & Clark; the westward expansion of the nation; the 
Civil War, where the Army fought to maintain the unity of the young 
nation; the World Wars where we battled to preserve global peace; the 
Cold War where the Army stood vigilant against the expansionist desires 
of communist countries; in the Persian Gulf chasing a petty dictator 
and bully out of Kuwait; spearheading humanitarian relief efforts in 
any number of countries; or enforcing a fragile peace in Bosnia, the 
soldiers of our Army were there, doing their duty. Certainly this is a 
story worthy of chronicling through a museum, and the time has come to 
build such a facility.
  What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades, many sites have 
been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have 
unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are 
unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate 
Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army 
Museum has been a long and cumbersome undertaking. A site selection 
committee was organized and it developed a list of seventeen criteria 
which any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be 
selected as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these 
criteria required such things as: an area permitting movement of large 
vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments; 
commanding an aesthetically pleasing vista; positive impact on the 
environment; closeness to public transportation; closeness to a 
Washington Tourmobile route; convenience to Fort Myer for support by 
the 3d Infantry--The Old Guard; accessibility by private automobile; 
adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors; adequate parking 
for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors-a-year that will not use public 
transportation; food service for staff and visitors; an area that is 
low in crime and is safe for staff and visitors; suitable space--at 
least 300,000 square feet--for construction; a low water table; good 
drainage; no history of flooding; and, suitability for subterranean 
construction.
  Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful 
have been worthy of any serious consideration.
  The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, 
Pennsylvania, the Washington Navy Yard, the ``Marriott property'' in 
northern-Virginia, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Three of these sites 
clearly have characteristics which are directly contrary to the 
established criteria for site selection. The extraordinary distance of 
Carlisle from Washington speaks for itself. The ``Marriott property'' 
was carefully studied numerous times, and though it was the Army's 
first choice, it was always determined that the site was too small and 
that the cost of the property too high. The suggestion that the Army 
locate its museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary 
to prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is 
situated in a difficult to get to part of the District, on the 
Anacostia River, as well as on a precarious 50-year flood plain. 
Because this area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army 
Museum''--I will repeat this awkward location--a ``Washington Navy Yard 
Army Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed due 
to flooding. Furthermore, the Navy Yard is simply too small to allow 
the construction of a facility that can chronicle the more than 225-
year history of the Army. From even before the first blueprint is 
drawn, architects and historians trying to create a museum that will be 
recognized as a world-class facility for the study of the American Army 
and military history will be limited by the lack of space available at 
the Navy Yard. Secondly, the Navy Yard is situated in a part of the 
District of Columbia well off the circuit that visitors travel when 
they come to Washington. The Navy Yard abuts a residential district 
with narrow streets which means it will be confusing for people to 
drive there, streets will be congested with traffic, and there will be 
a lack of parking for cars and tour buses. Additionally, the Navy Yard 
has become less military in character and more of a patchwork home to 
various government offices. To locate the Army Museum in an old Navy 
yard, which sometimes may be under water, would send a clear signal to 
visitors that choosing a home to their history

[[Page 9895]]

was nothing more than an afterthought. Finally, it is simply not 
appropriate to have a museum chronicling the history of the Army at a 
Navy facility. The Army museum belongs on an Army installation.
  As an interesting footnote, the April 27, 1999 issue of the 
Washington Post carried an article about the search for a new location 
to house the headquarters for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms 
and reported that a site on New York Avenue seemed to be the first 
choice. It mentioned that another site in the District had previously 
been considered as the new home of the BATF, that of the Southeast 
Federal Center, ``. . . a huge development envisioned for the Anacostia 
River waterfront south of Capitol Hill, next to the Washington Navy 
Yard.'' Not surprisingly, the article also reported that BATF had 
resisted that option because it was considered--and I quote--``. . .too 
remote''. If the Navy Yard is too remote a site for the BATF, how is it 
any more convenient for the Army Museum or those hundreds of thousands 
of people who will visit it every year?
  In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site 
searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for 
the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive 
location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site; it is only five minutes 
from Interstate 95, which is traveled by more than 300 million vehicles 
each year; it is only three minutes from the Fairfax County Parkway; it 
is served by Metro Bus; and Richmond Highway is next to the main gate 
of Fort Belvoir.
  Beyond its ideal location, Fort Belvoir is also a winner 
historically. It is on a portion of General George Washington's 
properties when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. It 
is located on the historical heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, 
Woodlawn Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the 
Army Museum at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established 
military and historic installation that has already been approved by 
the National Capital Planning Commission to be used for community 
activities, which includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir 
Master Plan. The Fort Belvoir site meets all 17 criteria originally 
established by the Army. With the Marine Corps planning to build its 
heritage center at nearby Quantico, these two facilities would most 
certainly complement each other.
  Indeed, the planned Marine Corps museum is an excellent example of a 
carefully contemplated facility that not only will capture the rich 
history of that service, but make the complex an attractive tourist 
destination. The Marines' heritage complex will be 460,000 square feet 
and will include a museum, a welcome center, an IMAX theater, a 
conference center, and a hotel. Clearly, the Marine Corps has come-up 
with a winning equation for a facility that will tell the story of that 
service and the Army should be allowed to do the same. Placing the Army 
Museum at the Navy Yard will not only inhibit efforts to present the 
history of the Army, but it will also force the establishment of a 
museum that is inferior and not all that it can be. Finally, co-
locating the Army and Marine museums in the same geographic area would 
create a military history ``zone'', so to speak, and greatly increase 
the number of visitors that will take time to stop at both museums to 
learn more about our armed services and the valuable contributions they 
have made to the nation.
  Mr. President, we have been trying to find a suitable site for the 
Army Museum since 1983. While I find it hard to believe that it should 
take 16-years to identify a suitable site, I am willing to concede that 
we should spare no effort in making certain that we find the perfect 
place to locate the Army Museum. I fear that citizens would hesitate 
visiting the Navy Yard if designated as the home for the Army Museum. 
Simply put, Fort Belvoir enjoys every advantage over the Navy Yard, the 
Marriott property, Carlisle Barracks, or any other site, as a place to 
build the Army Museum.
  The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for 
the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington 
area to host the Army Museum. Army veterans want to remember and show 
their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which 
they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do 
this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the 
Army's Site Selection Committee. Fort Belvoir is Army and should host 
Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and 
bring the 16-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by 
selecting a worthy home for one of this nation's greatest institutions.
  Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A 
morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always 
valuable.'' I am pleased to see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a 
task for this Congress at the beginning of a new century, at a time 
when all Americans are proud of their nation's accomplishments and 
those who made it all possible. I am absolutely concerned that all our 
veterans are honored and honored appropriately. Every year, Army 
veterans bring their families to Washington and are disappointed that 
no museum exists as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. Time is 
running out for many Army veterans, especially those of World War II. I 
urge my colleagues to review this important piece of legislation and 
support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1064

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Museum of the 
     United States Army Site Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Nation does not have adequate knowledge edge of the 
     role of the Army in the development and protection of the 
     United States.
       (2) The Army, the oldest United States military service, 
     lacks a primary museum with public exhibition space and is in 
     dire need of a permanent facility to house and display its 
     historical artifacts.
       (3) Such a museum would serve to enhance the preservation, 
     study, and interpretation of Army historical artifacts.
       (4) Many Army artifacts of historical significance and 
     national interest which are currently unavailable for public 
     display would be exhibited in such a museum.
       (5) While the Smithsonian Institution would be able to 
     assist the Army in developing programs of presentations 
     relating to the mission, values, and heritage of the Army, 
     such a museum would be more appropriate institution for such 
     programs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide for a permanent site for a museum to serve 
     as the National Museum of the United States Army;
       (2) to ensure the preservation, maintenance, and 
     interpretation of the artifacts and history collected by such 
     museum;
       (3) to enhance the knowledge of the American people to the 
     role of the Army in United States history; and
       (4) to provide a facility for the public display of the 
     artifacts and history of the Army.

     SEC. 3. LOCATION OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   ARMY.

       The Secretary of the Army shall provide for the location of 
     the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort 
     Belvoir, Virginia.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1065. A bill to authorize negotiation for the accession of Chile 
to the North American Free Trade Agreement, to provide for Fast Track 
Consideration and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                      CHILE FAST TRACK ACT OF 1999

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nearly five years ago, a bipartisan 
majority of this body ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
Since then the promises of new jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs 
and a cleaner environment have all come true. In other words, Mr. 
President, NAFTA has succeeded despite the predictions of some that 
America could not compete in today's global economy.

[[Page 9896]]

  With the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is now time to move 
forward and expand the free trade zone to other countries in our 
hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, I am introducing 
legislation today which will authorize and enable the President to move 
forward with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile.
  Chile, Mr. President, is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In 
fact, Chile already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. 
Today, the Chilean economy is growing at a healthy annual rate of more 
than 7 percent. Chile is noted for its concern for preserving the 
environment and has put in place environmental protections that are 
laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in order as evidenced by a balanced 
budget, strong currency, strong foreign reserves and continued inflows 
of foreign capital, including significant direct investment.
  Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. Last January, 
the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile does not 
yet have a free trade agreement fell from 11 percent to 10 percent. 
That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall gradually to 6 percent in 
2003. While some goods are still assessed at a higher rate, the United 
States does a brisk export business to Chile, sending approximately 
$4.5 billion in American goods to that South American nation. That 
represents 25 percent of Chile's imports. That $4.5 billion in exports 
represents thousands of American jobs across the nation. Furthermore, 
the United States currently runs a trade surplus of nearly $3 billion 
per year.
  Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our 
foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned 
to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. 
Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and 
the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities 
as spelled out in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade 
can play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic 
successes.
  It is unrealistic to think that the President will be able to 
negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor 
should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such 
circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will provide 
him with a limited fast track authority which will apply only to this 
specific treaty. I believe that fast track is key to enabling the 
President to negotiate the most advantageous trade agreements, and 
should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, however, there are 
stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic fast track can be re-
authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be allowed to stand in 
the way of free trade with Chile.
  Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move 
overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that 
America, the nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best 
workers and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete with 
other nations.
  Mr. President, the past five and a half years since we ratified NAFTA 
have proven them wrong. Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The 
environment in North America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has 
created 600,000 new American jobs all across the nation.
  The successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential broader 
free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade and 
economic relationships foster American influence and support our 
foreign policy. In other words, Mr. President, this bill represents new 
American jobs in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy 
and greater American influence in our own Hemisphere. Mr. President, I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      BY Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Grams, Mr. Hagel, 
        and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1066. A bill to amend the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act to 1977 to encourage the use of and 
research into agricultural best practices to improve the environment, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


        CARBON CYCLE AND AGRICUTURAL BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH ACT

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I rise today to introduce an important 
component to further the scientific understanding of the earth's role 
as it relates to the environment, specifically the carbon cycle. What 
sparked my interest in introducing a carbon cycle research bill was a 
1998 finding by academic and federal researchers that the North 
American continent from 1988 to 1992 absorbed an equivalent amount of 
the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel emissions during the same 
time. Scientists know it happened, but cannot pinpoint the mechanisms 
of the process. Although you cannot watch carbon dioxide move into 
soil, you can see soil with high levels of carbon like river bottomland 
that has rich dark soil. Naturally, the question arises of how 
agriculture supplements this natural process.
  By introducing this bill, it is my intention to follow through on the 
advice of climate scientists that there is a need for more research 
because the carbon cycle issue is complex. The bill makes sure that 
USDA is researching voluntary agricultural best practices such as 
conservation tillage, buffer strips, the Conservation Reserve Program, 
and new technology like precision sprayers that have multiple 
environmental benefits.
  These voluntary agricultural best practices increase soil carbon 
levels also tend to reduce soil erosion, reduce fuel costs for 
producers, improve soil fertility, and increase production. It's a win 
win win. Nonetheless, there are agencies and individuals with agendas 
that believe agriculture is a source of greenhouse gas emissions and do 
not care about the multitude of benefits accruing from production 
agriculture. Therefore, we must arm agriculture with sound science on 
the carbon cycle.
  This bill is intended to give producers and policymakers better 
understanding of the link between the carbon cycle and voluntary best 
practices. It authorizes USDA to conduct basic research on the 
mechanics of carbon being stored in soil and applied research to fine 
tune voluntary agricultural practices to increase the storage of carbon 
in soils. Furthermore, research will be helpful in finding out if 
agriculture can be a tool to solve the challenge of climate change.
  I also want to make clear that this is a research bill. It has 
nothing to do with trading carbon credits or setting up a scheme for 
early action rewards if the Protocol becomes effective. The whole point 
of this bill is that there needs to be an understanding of the science 
and examining methods to meet the challenge of climate change without 
an international treaty. This bill compliments other legislation, such 
as Mr. Murkowski's bill, that calls for increased energy efficiency 
research.
  The bill taps into USDA's broad research capabilities as it relates 
to production techniques and soil databases, but I have also 
incorporated state-of-the-art research tools including satellite-based 
technology. Satellite based remote sensing is becoming more useful as 
an agricultural production component. Right now, satellites measure the 
greening up of wheat during spring months, making more precise 
estimates of wheat harvests. In discussions with remote sensing leaders 
at the University of Kansas, remote sensing has a role in providing the 
``big picture'' as it relates to what agriculture is doing as it 
relates to the carbon cycle, such as mapping vegetation and estimating 
the amount of carbon it can store in soil.
  Because of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
initial research that shows the North American Continent is a net 
carbon sink, I have included bill language to use air monitors to study 
the regional interaction of carbon dioxide. For instance, measure the 
movement of air from Denver to Kansas City. If the carbon dioxide level 
is lower in Kansas City than Denver, Kansas agriculture and

[[Page 9897]]

land is absorbing carbon. With this data, scientists can start looking 
at specific ag practices.
  It is my hope that the Senate can enact this legislation to be 
proactive in meeting the climate challenge, encouraging voluntary 
agricultural best practices and technology that have multiple benefits. 
This is a strategy that is based on commonsense, not suggestions made 
by the International Panel on Climate Change that would halt production 
agriculture as we know it. Producers can use technology to feed a 
troubled and hungry world, plus absorb carbon dioxide.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the legislation was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1066

       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 ``Carbon Cycle and 
     Agricultural Best Practices Research Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) agricultural producers in the United States--
       (A) have, in good faith, participated in mandatory and 
     voluntary conservation programs, the successes of which are 
     unseen by the general public, to preserve natural resources; 
     and
       (B) have a personal stake in ensuring that the air, water, 
     and soil of the United States are productive since 
     agricultural productivity directly affects--
       (i) the economic success of agricultural producers; and
       (ii) the production of food and fiber for developing and 
     developed nations;
       (2) in addition to providing food and fiber, agriculture 
     serves an environmental role by providing benefits to air, 
     soil, and water through agricultural best practices;
       (3) those conservation programs and Federal land provide 
     the United States with an enormous potential to increase the 
     quantity of carbon stored in agricultural land and 
     commodities through the carbon cycle;
       (4) according to the Climate Modeling and Diagnostics 
     Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, North American soils, crops, rangelands, and 
     forests absorbed an equivalent quantity of carbon dioxide 
     emitted from fossil fuel combustion as part of the natural 
     carbon cycle from 1988 through 1992;
       (5) the estimated quantity of carbon stored in world soils 
     is more than twice the carbon in living vegetation or in the 
     atmosphere;
       (6) agricultural best practices can increase the quantity 
     of carbon stored in farm soils, crops, and rangeland;
       (7) although there is a tremendous quantity of carbon 
     stored in soil that supports agricultural operations in the 
     United States, the quantity of carbon stored in soil may be 
     increased by using a strategy that would benefit the 
     environment without implementing a United Nations-sponsored 
     climate change protocol or treaty;
       (8) Federal research is needed to identify--
       (A) the agricultural best practices that supplement the 
     natural carbon cycle; and
       (B) Federal conservation programs that can be altered to 
     increase the environmental benefits provided by the natural 
     carbon cycle;
       (9) increasing soil organic carbon is widely recognized as 
     a means of increasing agricultural production and meeting the 
     growing domestic and international food consumption needs 
     with a positive environmental benefit;
       (10) agricultural best practices include the more efficient 
     use of agriculture inputs and equipment; and
       (11) tax credits should be offered in order to facilitate 
     the widespread use of more efficient agriculture inputs and 
     equipment and to increase environmental benefits.

     SEC. 3. AGRICULTURAL BEST PRACTICES.

       Title XIV of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Subtitle N--Carbon Cycle and Agricultural Best Practices

     ``SEC. 1490. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Agricultural best practice.--The term `agricultural 
     best practice' means a voluntary practice used by 1 or more 
     agricultural producers to manage a farm or ranch that has a 
     beneficial or minimal impact on the environment, including--
       ``(A) crop residue management;
       ``(B) soil erosion management;
       ``(C) nutrient management;
       ``(D) remote sensing;
       ``(E) precision agriculture;
       ``(F) integrated pest management;
       ``(G) animal waste management;
       ``(H) cover crop management;
       ``(I) water quality and utilization management;
       ``(J) grazing and range management;
       ``(K) wetland management;
       ``(L) buffer strip use; and
       ``(M) tree planting.
       ``(2) Conservation program.--The term `conservation 
     program' means a program established under--
       ``(A) subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.);
       ``(B) section 401 or 402 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201, 2202);
       ``(C) section 3 or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood 
     Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1003, 1006a); or
       ``(D) any other provision of law that authorizes the 
     Secretary to make payments or provide other assistance to 
     agricultural producers to promote conservation.

     ``SEC. 1491. CARBON CYCLE AND AGRICULTURAL BEST PRACTICES 
                   RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Department of Agriculture shall be 
     the lead agency with respect to any agricultural soil carbon 
     research conducted by the Federal Government.
       ``(b) Research Services.--
       ``(1) Agricultural research service.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Agricultural Research Service, shall collaborate 
     with other Federal agencies to develop data and conduct 
     research addressing soil carbon balance and storage, making 
     special efforts to--
       ``(A) determine the effects of management and conservation 
     on carbon storage in cropland and grazing land;
       ``(B) evaluate the long-term impact of tillage and residue 
     management systems on the accumulation of organic carbon;
       ``(C) study the transfer of organic carbon to soil; and
       ``(D) study carbon storage of commodities.
       ``(2) Natural resources conservation service.--
       ``(A) Research missions.--The research missions of the 
     Secretary, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, include--
       ``(i) the development of a soil carbon database to--

       ``(I) provide online access to information about soil 
     carbon potential in a format that facilitates the use of the 
     database in making land management decisions; and
       ``(II) allow additional and more refined data to be linked 
     to similar databases containing information on forests and 
     rangeland;

       ``(ii) the conversion to an electronic format and linkage 
     to the national soil database described in clause (i) of 
     county-level soil surveys and State-level soil maps;
       ``(iii) updating of State-level soil maps;
       ``(iv) the linkage, for information purposes only, of soil 
     information to other soil and land use databases; and
       ``(v) the completion of evaluations, such as field 
     validation and calibration, of modeling, remote sensing, and 
     statistical inventory approaches to carbon stock assessments 
     related to land management practices and agronomic systems at 
     the field, regional, and national levels.
       ``(B) Unit of information.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service, shall disseminate 
     a national basic unit of information for an assessment of the 
     carbon storage potential of soils in the United States.
       ``(3) Economic research service report.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Economic Research Service, 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report that analyzes the impact 
     of the financial health of the farm economy of the United 
     States under the Kyoto Protocol and other international 
     agreements under the Framework Convention on Climate Change--
       ``(A) with and without market mechanisms (including whether 
     the mechanisms are permits for emissions and whether the 
     permits are issued by allocation, auction, or otherwise);
       ``(B) with and without the participation of developing 
     countries;
       ``(C) with and without carbon sinks; and
       ``(D) with respect to the imposition of traditional command 
     and control measures.
       ``(c) Consortia.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may designate not more 
     than 2 carbon cycle and agricultural best practices research 
     consortia.
       ``(2) Selection.--The consortia designated by the Secretary 
     shall be selected in a competitive manner by the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
       ``(3) Duties.--The consortia shall--
       ``(A) identify, develop, and evaluate agricultural best 
     practices using partnerships composed of Federal, State, or 
     private entities and the Department of Agriculture, including 
     the Agricultural Research Service;
       ``(B) develop necessary computer models to predict and 
     assess the carbon cycle, as well as other priorities 
     requested by the Secretary and the heads of other Federal 
     agencies;
       ``(C) estimate and develop mechanisms to measure carbon 
     levels made available as a result of voluntary Federal 
     conservation programs, private and Federal forests, and other 
     land uses; and

[[Page 9898]]

       ``(D) develop outreach programs, in coordination with 
     extension services, to share information on carbon cycle and 
     agricultural best practices that is useful to agricultural 
     producers.
       ``(4) Consortia participants.--The participants in the 
     consortia may include--
       ``(A) land-grant colleges and universities;
       ``(B) State geological surveys;
       ``(C) research centers of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration;
       ``(D) other Federal agencies;
       ``(E) representatives of agricultural businesses and 
     organizations; and
       ``(F) representatives of the private sector.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
       ``(d) Promotion of Agricultural Best Practices.--The 
     Secretary shall promote voluntary agricultural best practices 
     that take into account soil organic matter dynamics, carbon 
     cycle, ecology, and soil organisms that will lead to the more 
     effective use of soil resources to--
       ``(1) enhance the carbon cycle;
       ``(2) improve soil quality;
       ``(3) increase the use of renewable resources; and
       ``(4) overcome unfavorable physical soil properties.
       ``(e) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate an annual report that describes programs that are or 
     will be conducted by the Secretary, through land-grant 
     colleges and universities, to provide to agricultural 
     producers the results of research conducted on agricultural 
     best practices, including the results of--
       ``(1) research;
       ``(2) future research plans;
       ``(3) consultations with appropriate scientific 
     organizations;
       ``(4) proposed extension outreach activities; and
       ``(5) findings of scientific peer review under section 
     103(d)(1) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(d)(1)).

     ``SEC. 1492. CARBON CYCLE REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) Carbon Cycle Remote Sensing Technology Program.--
       ``(1) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, shall develop a carbon cycle remote sensing 
     technology program--
       ``(A) to provide, on a near-continual basis, a real-time 
     and comprehensive view of vegetation conditions; and
       ``(B) to assess and model agricultural carbon 
     sequestration.
       ``(2) Use of centers.--The Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall use regional earth 
     science application centers to conduct research under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Researched areas.--The areas that shall be the 
     subjects of research conducted under this section include--
       ``(A) the mapping of carbon-sequestering land use and land 
     cover;
       ``(B) the monitoring of changes in land cover and 
     management
       ``(C) new systems for the remote sensing of soil carbon; 
     and
       ``(D) regional-scale carbon sequestration estimation.
       ``(b) Regional Earth Science Application Center.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, shall carry out this section through the 
     Regional Earth Science Application Center located at the 
     University of Kansas (referred to in this section as the 
     `Center'), if the Center enters into a partnership with a 
     land-grant college or university.
       ``(2) Duties of center.--The Center shall serve as a 
     research facility and clearinghouse for satellite data, 
     software, research, and related information with respect to 
     remote sensing research conducted under this section.
       ``(3) Use of center.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, shall use the Center for carrying out remote 
     sensing research relating to agricultural best practices.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

     ``SEC. 1493. CONSERVATION PREMIUM PAYMENTS.

       ``In addition to payments that are made by the Secretary to 
     producers under conservation programs, the Secretary may 
     offer conservation premium payments to producers that are 
     participating in the conservation programs to compensate the 
     producers for allowing researchers to scientifically analyze, 
     and collect information with respect to, agricultural best 
     practices that are carried out by the producers as part of 
     conservation projects and activities that are funded, in 
     whole or in part, by the Federal Government.

     ``SEC. 1494. ASSISTANCE FOR AGRICULTURAL BEST PRACTICES AND 
                   NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS UNDER 
                   CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to assistance that is 
     provided by the Secretary to producers under conservation 
     programs, the Secretary, on request of the producers, shall 
     provide education through extension activities and technical 
     and financial assistance to producers that are participating 
     in the conservation programs to assist the producers in 
     planning, designing, and installing agricultural best 
     practices and natural resource management plans established 
     under the conservation programs.
       ``(b) Information to Developing Nations.--The Secretary 
     shall disseminate to developing nations information on 
     agricultural best practices and natural resource management 
     plans that--
       ``(1) provide crucial agricultural benefits for soil and 
     water quality; and
       ``(2) increase production.

     ``SEC. 1495. CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH MONITORING SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in conjunction with 
     the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration and the United States Global Change Research 
     Program, may establish a nationwide carbon cycle monitoring 
     system (referred to in this section as the `monitoring 
     system') to research the flux of carbon between soil, air, 
     and water.
       ``(b) Purpose of System.--The monitoring system shall focus 
     on locating network monitors on or near agricultural best 
     practices that are--
       ``(1) undertaken voluntarily;
       ``(2) undertaken through a conservation program of the 
     Department of Agriculture;
       ``(3) implemented as part of a program or activity of the 
     Department of Agriculture; or
       ``(4) identified by the Administrator of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       ``(c) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary may enter 
     into a memorandum of understanding with the Administrator of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ensure 
     that research goals of programs established by the Federal 
     Government related to carbon monitoring are met through the 
     monitoring system.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subtitle $10,000,000.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. DeWine, Ms. 
        Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Levin, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 1067. A bill to promote the adoption of children with special 
needs; to the Committee on Finance.


                   THE ADOPTION EQUALITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Adoption Equality Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for 
his leadership on behalf of vulnerable children, including our 
bipartisan work on this legislation. He joins me today as an original 
co-sponsor of this legislation as do Senators DeWine, Collins, Levin, 
Landrieu, Moynihan, Breaux, Kerrey, Dorgan, Conrad, Inouye, Durbin and 
Torricelli. Work on this legislation is based on the bipartisan work of 
the Senate coalition that supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families 
Act.
  A unique bipartisan coalition formed in 1997 worked hard to forge 
consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This 
law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and 
safety must be paramount when any decisions are made regarding children 
in the abuse and neglect system. While this law was the most sweeping 
and comprehensive piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a 
decade, more work needs to be done to truly achieve the goals promoted 
in the Act of safety, stability and permanence for all abused and 
neglected children. Senator Chafee and I and all of the other co-
sponsors I have named committed ourselves to continuing that work and 
that is why we are here today.
  Throughout the process of developing the Adoption Act we heard about 
the challenging circumstances facing children described as having 
``special needs''. These include children who are the most difficult to 
place into permanent homes, often due to their age, disability or 
status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together. I 
spent time learning about the special needs children in my own state of 
West Virginia. Prior to the passage of ASFA, there were 870 children, 
most with special needs, awaiting adoption in West Virginia. Today, I 
am proud to report

[[Page 9899]]

that this number has been reduced to 621. The dedication of our state 
adoption staff, when combined with the incentives and focus on 
permanence provided in ASFA have successfully effected the placement of 
nearly a third of the waiting children.
  One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of 
ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who 
move from foster care to adoption. The Adoption Equality Act is an 
essential second step in this ongoing process. This important 
legislation will promote and increase adoptions by making all children 
with special needs eligible for Federal adoption subsidy. The bill is 
designed to ``level the playing field'' by ensuring that all children 
with special needs, and the loving families who adopt them, have the 
support they need to grow and develop.
  Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption subsidies to 
families who adopt only those special needs children whose biological 
family would have been qualified for welfare benefits under the old 
1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption subsidy payments provide 
essential income support to help families finance the daily costs of 
raising these special children (food, clothing) and also special 
services (equipment, therapy, tutoring, etc.). Federal adoption 
subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for special needs 
children who by definition would not be adopted without support.
  Under current law, a child's eligibility for these important benefits 
is dependent on the income of his or her biological parents even though 
these parents' legal rights to the child have been terminated, and 
these are the parents who either abused or neglected the child. This 
is, simply, wrong. The Adoption Equality Act will eliminate this 
anomaly in Federal law by making all special needs children eligible 
for Federal adoption subsidies.
  First, the bill removes the requirement that an income eligibility 
determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, whom 
the child is leaving, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy to be 
paid to all families who adopt children who meet the definition of 
special needs.
  Second, the bill gives States flexibility in determining their own 
criteria, which may, but need not, include judicial determination, to 
the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the 
safety or welfare of the child, as well as their own definition of 
which of the children in their state are children with special needs.
  Third, the bill requires that states re-invest the monies they save 
as a result of this bill back into their state child abuse and neglect 
programs.
  When we talk about how to help abused and neglected children in this 
country, many complex questions are raised about what constitutes best 
policy, and how Federal tax dollars should be spent. Yet, at the heart 
of it all are the children who desperately want a family to call their 
own, and the families who want to adopt them. The lack of adequate 
financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only 
barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving and 
permanent home. With the numbers of abused and neglected children 
rising dramatically--in West Virginia alone child abuse reports have 
doubled--from 13,000 in 1986 to over 26,000 in 1996--we need to remove 
every barrier in our efforts to make a difference. A West Virginia 
family recently told me:

       I knew we had enough love to give a child with special 
     needs--even siblings. But could we afford it? More children 
     means more of everything. This obstacle was removed through 
     the adoption subsidy program and we now have four children in 
     our lives. Our lives have truly changed. Special needs for us 
     was a very special way to adopt a waiting child.

  Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage adoption of 
children with special needs--those children who have the hardest time 
finding permanent, adoptive families. It is an absurd policy to 
discriminate against thousands of children with special needs based 
upon the income of their biological (and often abusive) parents. It is 
time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives 
all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being 
adopted.
  I am confident that the Adoption Equality Act will do just that, and 
at the same time, with the re-investment requirement, states should 
have the incentive to make additional improvements in their child 
welfare systems. These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more 
able to effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable 
children. I urge my colleagues join us in co-sponsoring and passing 
this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief fact 
sheet be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1067

       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 ``Adoption Equality Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROMOTION OF ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child 
     meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child--
       ``(i)(I) at the time of termination of parental rights was 
     in the care of a public or licensed private child placement 
     agency or Indian tribal organization pursuant to a voluntary 
     placement agreement, relinquishment, or involuntary removal 
     of the child from the home, and the State has determined, 
     pursuant to criteria established by the State (which may, but 
     need not, include a judicial determination), that 
     continuation in the home would be contrary to the safety or 
     welfare of such child;
       ``(II) meets all medical or disability requirements of 
     title XVI with respect to eligibility for supplemental 
     security income benefits; or
       ``(III) was residing in a foster family home or child care 
     institution with the child's minor parent (pursuant to a 
     voluntary placement agreement, relinquishment, or involuntary 
     removal of the child from the home, and the State has 
     determined, pursuant to criteria established by the State 
     (which may, but need not, include judicial determination), 
     that continuation in the home would be contrary to the safety 
     or welfare of such child); and
       ``(ii) has been determined by the State, pursuant to 
     subsection (c), to be a child with special needs, which needs 
     shall be considered by the State, together with the 
     circumstances of the adopting parents, in determining the 
     amount of any payments to be made to the adopting parents.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except as provided in paragraph (7), a child who is not a 
     citizen or resident of the United States and who meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as meeting 
     the requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).
       ``(C) A child who meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A), who was determined eligible for adoption assistance 
     payments under this part with respect to a prior adoption (or 
     who would have been determined eligible for such payments had 
     the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 been in effect at 
     the time that such determination would have been made), and 
     who is available for adoption because the prior adoption has 
     been dissolved and the parental rights of the adoptive 
     parents have been terminated or because the child's adoptive 
     parents have died, shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).''.
       (b) Exception.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, no payment may be made to parents with respect to 
     any child that--
       ``(i) would be considered a child with special needs under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United States; 
     and
       ``(iii) was adopted outside of the United States or was 
     brought into the United States for the purpose of being 
     adopted.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as 
     prohibiting payments under this part for a child described in 
     subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care subsequent to 
     the failure, as determined by the State, of the initial 
     adoption of such child by the parents described in such 
     subparagraph.''.
       (c) Requirement for Use of State Savings.--Section 473(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the amount of 
     savings (if any) in State expenditures under this part 
     resulting from the

[[Page 9900]]

     application of paragraph (2) on and after the effective date 
     of the amendment to such paragraph made by section 2(a) of 
     the Adoption Equality Act of 1999 to provide to children or 
     families any service (including post-adoption services) that 
     may be provided under this part or part B.''.
       (d) Determination of a Child With Special Needs.--Section 
     473(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, a child shall not be 
     considered a child with special needs unless--
       ``(1)(A) the State has determined, pursuant to a criteria 
     established by the State (which may or may not include a 
     judicial determination), that the child cannot or should not 
     be returned to the home of his parents; or
       ``(B) the child meets all medical or disability 
     requirements of title XVI with respect to eligibility for 
     supplemental security income benefits; and
       ``(2) the State has determined--
       ``(A) that there exists with respect to the child a 
     specific factor or condition (such as ethnic background, age, 
     or membership in a minority or sibling group, or the presence 
     of factors such as medical conditions or physical, mental, or 
     emotional handicaps) because of which it is reasonable to 
     conclude that the child cannot be placed with adoptive 
     parents without providing adoption assistance under this 
     section and medical assistance under title XIX; and
       ``(B) that except where it would be against the best 
     interests of the child because of such factors as the 
     existence of significant emotional ties with prospective 
     adoptive parents while in the care of such parents as a 
     foster child, a reasonable, but unsuccessful, effort has been 
     made to place the child with appropriate adoptive parents 
     without providing adoption assistance under this section or 
     medical assistance under title XIX.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
                                  ____


The Social Security Act, Title IV, Part E--Federal Payments for Foster 
  Care and Adoption Assistance, Fact Sheet and Explanation, Adoption 
                    Assistance Program, Section 473


                              Present Law

       Current law provides for the payment of federal adoption 
     subsidies to families who adopt ``special needs'' children 
     whose biological family would have been qualified for welfare 
     benefits under the old 1996 AFDC standards. Federal adoption 
     subsidy payments provide essential income support to help 
     families finance the daily costs of raising these special 
     children (food, clothing) and also special services 
     (equipment, therapy, tutoring, etc.). Federal adoption 
     subsidies are a vital link in securing adoptive homes for 
     special needs children who by definition would not be adopted 
     without support.
       Under current law, a child's eligibility for these 
     important benefits is dependent on the income of his or her 
     biological parents even though these parents' legal rights to 
     the child have been terminated, and these are the parents who 
     either abused or neglected the child.
       Current law also allows for the payment of federal adoption 
     subsidies to families who adopt a ``special needs'' child who 
     meets all the requirements of title XVI with respect to 
     eligibility for supplemental security income benefits (SSI), 
     again, linking a child's eligibility for subsidy to the 
     income and assets of the biological parents as well as to the 
     child's disability.
       Current law defines a child with special needs, as a child 
     who has a specific factor or condition (such as ethnic 
     background, age, or membership in a minority or sibling 
     group, or the presence of factors such as medical conditions 
     or physical, mental, or emotional handicaps) because of which 
     it is reasonable to conclude that such child cannot be placed 
     with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance 
     under this section and medical assistance under title XIX, 
     and that except where it would be against the best interests 
     of the child because of such factors as the existence of 
     significant emotional ties with prospective adoptive parents 
     while in the care of such parents as a foster child, a 
     reasonable, but unsuccessful, effort has been made to place 
     the child with appropriate adoptive parents without providing 
     adoption assistance under this section or medical assistance 
     under title XIX.
       Under current law, the amount of payments to be made are 
     determined through an agreement between the adoptive parents 
     and the State or local agency. This agreement takes into 
     account both the special needs of the child and the 
     circumstances of the adopting parents. It may be periodically 
     adjusted, and can continue to be paid until the child reaches 
     the age of 18 (or 21 if the child has a physical or mental 
     handicap which warrants that the payments continue). The 
     amount of payment may never exceed the amount that would be 
     paid as a foster care maintenance payment if the same child 
     had remained in foster care.


                        Explanation of provision

       This bill makes all special needs children eligible for 
     Federal adoption subsidies by ``delinking'' a child's 
     eligibility from the archaic AFDC guidelines, or other 
     income-eligibility determinations that would be based upon 
     the income of the biological parents, whom the child is 
     leaving.
       First, the bill removes the requirement that an income 
     eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's 
     biological parents, thereby allowing Federal adoption subsidy 
     to be paid to all families who adopt children who meet the 
     definition of special needs.
       The bill does NOT change the definition of special needs as 
     described above. Nor does this bill change the method by 
     which the payment amount is determined.
       Second, the bill gives States flexibility in determining 
     their own criteria, which may, but need not, include judicial 
     determination, to the effect that continuation in the home 
     would be contrary to the safety or welfare of the child.
       Third, the bill allows for Federal adoption subsidy to be 
     paid to families who adopt special needs children who meet 
     the medical/disability requirements, without requiring that 
     they, or their biological parents, meet the income standards, 
     of title XVI with respect to supplemental security income 
     benefits.
       Fourth, the bill requires that states re-invest the monies 
     they save as a result of this bill back into their state 
     child abuse and neglect programs.


                           Reason for Change

       Federal adoption subsidies are designed to encourage 
     adoption of children with special needs--those children who 
     have the hardest time finding permanent, adoptive families. 
     It is an absurd policy to discriminate against thousands of 
     children with special needs based upon the income of their 
     biological (and often abusive) parents. It is time to create 
     a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all 
     children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being 
     adopted.
       The proposed changes will do just that. They are designed 
     to remove a significant barrier to the adoption of these 
     children by making all special needs children eligible for 
     Federal adoption subsidies, regardless of income of the 
     biological (and often abusive) parents whom they are leaving.
       At the same time, with the re-investment requirement, 
     states should have the incentive to make additional 
     improvements in their child welfare systems.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Wellstone, 
        Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, and 
        Mr. Levin):
  S. 1068. A bill to provide for health, education, and welfare of 
children under 6 years of age; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                early childhood development act of 1999

 Mr. KERRY. Mr President, in the aftermath of the tragic school 
shootings in Littleton, and in this debate here in the Senate about 
juvenile justice, we've heard a great deal about efforts to keep guns 
out of the hands of violent students, we've heard about efforts to try 
juvenile offenders as adults, about stiffer sentences, about so many 
answers to the problem of kids who have run out of second and third 
chances--kids who are violent, kids who are committing crimes, children 
who are a danger to themselves and a danger to those around him. Mr. 
President, I was a prosecutor in Massachusetts before I entered elected 
office. I've seen these violent teenagers and young people come to 
court, and Mr. President let me tell you there is nothing more tragic 
than seeing these children who--in too many cases--have a jail cell in 
their future not far down the road, children who have done what is, at 
times, irreparable harm to their communities.
  And Mr. President, I keep asking myself, why is it we only start to 
care about these kids at that point--after the violence, after the 
arrest, after the damage has been done, when it may be too late--when 
we could have started intervening in our kids' lives early on, before 
it was too late. Mr. President, we can't say that we're having a real 
debate about juvenile justice if we're not talking about early 
childhood development efforts.
  The truth is that early intervention can have a powerful effect on 
reducing government welfare, health, criminal justice, and education 
expenditures in the long run. By taking steps now we can reduce later 
destructive behavior such as dropping out of school, drug use, and 
criminal acts like the ones we have seen in Littleton and Jonesboro.
  A study of the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool found that at-
risk toddlers who received pre-schooling and a weekly home visit 
reduced

[[Page 9901]]

the risk that these children would grow up to become chronic law 
breakers by a startling 80 percent. The Syracuse University Family 
Development Study showed that providing quality early-childhood 
programs to families until children reached age five reduces the 
children's risk of delinquency ten years later by 90 percent. It's no 
wonder that a recent survey of police chiefs found that nine out of ten 
said that ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested 
more'' in these early intervention programs.
  Let me tell you about the Early Childhood Initiative (ECI) in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania--an innovative program which helps low-
income children from birth to age five become successful, productive 
adults by enrolling them in high quality, neighborhood-based early care 
and education programs ranging from Head Start, center-based child 
care, home-based child care, and school readiness programs. ECI draws 
on everything that's right about Allegheny County--the strengths of its 
communities--neighborhood decision-making, parent involvement, and 
quality measurement. Parents and community groups decide if they want 
to participate and they come together and develop a proposal tailored 
for the community. Regular review programs ensure quality programming 
and cost-effectiveness. We're talking about local control getting 
results locally: 19,000 pre-school aged children from low-income 
families, 10,000 of which were not enrolled in any child care or 
education program. By the year 2000, through funding supplied by ECI, 
approximately 75% of these under-served pre-schoolers will be reached. 
Early evaluations show that enrolled children are achieving at rates 
equivalent to their middle income peers. And as we know, without this 
leveling of the playing field, low-income children are at a greater 
risk of encountering the juvenile justice system. That's a real 
difference.
  These kinds of programs are successful because children's experiences 
during their early years of life lay the foundation for their future 
development. But in too many places in this country our failure to 
provide young children what they need during these crucial early years 
has long-term consequences and costs for America.
  Recent Scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing 
children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development 
will result in tremendous benefits for children, families, and our 
nation. The electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the 
physical structure of the brain itself. Without a stimulating 
environment, the baby's brain suffers. At birth, a baby's brain 
contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are 
stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons 
develops over time. Children who play very little or are rarely touched 
develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age.
  Mr. President, reversing these problems later in life is far more 
difficult and costly. We know that--if it wasn't so much harder, we 
wouldn't be having this difficult debate in the Senate. Well I think 
it's time we talked about giving our kids the right start in their 
lives they need to be healthy, to be successful, to mature in a way 
that doesn't lead to at-risk and disruptive behavior and violence down 
the road.
  We should stop and consider what's really at stake here. Poverty 
seriously impairs young children's language development, math skills, 
IQ scores, and their later school completion. Poor young children also 
are at heightened risk of infant mortality, anemia, and stunted growth. 
Of the 12 million children under the age of three in the United States 
today, three million--25 percent--live in poverty. Three out of five 
mothers with children under three work, but one study found that 40 
percent of the facilities at child care centers serving infants 
provided care of such poor quality as to actually jeopardize children's 
health, safety, or development. In more than half of the states, one 
out of every four children between 19 months and three years of age is 
not fully immunized against common childhood diseases. Children who are 
not immunized are more likely to contract preventable diseases, which 
can cause long-term harm. Children younger than three make up 27 
percent of the one million children who are determined to be abused or 
neglected each year. Of the 1,200 children who died from abuse and 
neglect in 1995, 85 percent were younger than five and 45 percent were 
younger than one.
  Literally the future of millions of young people is at stake here. 
Literally, that's what we're talking about. But is it reflected in the 
investments we make here in the Senate? I would, respectfully, say no--
not nearly enough Mr. President.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, our government expenditure patterns are 
inverse to the most important early development period for human 
beings. Although we know that early investment can dramatically reduce 
later remedial and social costs, currently our nation spends no more 
than $35 billion over five years on federal programs for at-risk or 
delinquent youth and child welfare programs.
  That is a course we need to change, Mr. President. We need to start 
talking in a serious and a thoughtful way--through a bipartisan 
approach--about making a difference in the lives of our children before 
they're put at risk. We need to accept the truth that we can do a lot 
more to help our kids grow up healthy with promising futures in an 
early childhood development center, in a classroom, and in a doctor's 
office than we can in a courtroom or in a jail cell.
  Mr. President, these questions need to be a part of this juvenile 
justice debate, but they're not being included to the extent to which 
they should. My colleague Kit Bond and I are introducing our Early 
Childhood Development Act to move us forward in a bipartisan way 
towards that discussion--and towards actions we can take to provide 
meaningful intervention in the lives of all of our children. Kit Bond 
and I are appreciative of the deep support we've found for this 
legislation, evident in the co-sponsorship of the Kerry-Bond bill by 
Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, Senator Landrieu, Senator Levin, 
Senator Moynihan, Senator Wellstone, and my colleague from New Jersey, 
Senator Bob Torricelli. We are looking forward to working with all of 
you, from both sides of the aisle, to make that debate on the Kerry-
Bond bill a productive one, a debate that leads to the kind of actions 
we know can make the difference in addressing violence ten years before 
it starts, in getting all our children off to the right start towards 
full and productive lives.
 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Early 
Childhood Development Act of 1999'' with my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  Through this legislation, we are seeking to support families with the 
youngest children to find the early childhood education and quality 
child care programs that can help those families and parents provide 
the supportive, stimulating environment we all know their children 
need.
  Recent research shows that the first few years of life are an 
absolutely crucial developmental period for each child with a 
significant bearing on future prospects. During this time, infant brain 
development occurs more rapidly than previously thought, and the 
sensations and experiences of this time go a long way toward shaping 
that baby's mind in a way that has long-lasting effects on all aspects 
of the child's life.
  And parents and family are really the key to this development. Early, 
positive interaction with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and 
other adults plays a critical role.
  Here's what's going on during these amazing early years that in so 
many ways are crucial to each child. At birth, a baby's brain contains 
100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in 
the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons develops 
over time. Most things happening in the surrounding world--such as a 
mother's caress, a father's voice, even playing with a brother or 
sister--helps this wiring pattern expand and connect. A baby with a 
stimulating environment will make these connections at a tremendous

[[Page 9902]]

rate. However, infants and children who play very little or are rarely 
touched or stimulated develop brains that can be 20 to 30 percent 
smaller than normal for their age.
  Really we shouldn't be surprised that parents have known 
instinctively for generations some of these basic truths that science 
is just now figuring out. Most parents just know that babies need to be 
hugged, caressed, and spoken to.
  Of course, the types of interaction that can most enhance a child's 
development change as the baby's body and mind grow. The types of 
behavior that are so instinctual for the youngest babies may not be 
quite so obvious for two- and three-year-olds. Raising a child is 
perhaps the most important thing any of us will do, but it is also one 
of the most complicated.
  And parents today also face a variety of stresses and problems that 
were unheard of a generation ago. In many families, both parents work. 
Whether by choice or by necessity, many parents may not be able to read 
mountains of books and articles about parenting and child development 
to keep perfectly up-to-date on what types of experiences are most 
appropriate for their child at his or her particular stage of 
development. They also must try to find good child care and good 
environments where their children can be stimulated and educated while 
they work. Simply put, most parents can probably use a little help.
  Many communities across the country have developed successful early 
childhood development programs to meet these needs. Most of the 
programs work with parents to help them understand their child's 
development and to discuss ways to help further develop the little 
baby's potential. Others simply provide basic child care and an 
exciting learning environment for children of parents who both have to 
work.
  In a report released in 1998, the prestigious RAND Corporation 
reviewed early childhood programs like these and found that they 
provide higher-risk children with both short- and long-run benefits. 
These benefits include enhanced development of both the mind and the 
child's ability to interact with others, they include improvement in 
educational outcomes, and they include a long-term increase in self-
sufficiency through finding jobs and staying off government programs.
  Of course, it's no mystery to many people from Missouri that this 
type of program can be successful. In Missouri, we are both proud and 
lucky to be the home of Parents as Teachers. This tremendous initiative 
is an early childhood parent education program that has been designed 
to empower all parents to giver their young child the best possible 
start in life. Expanding Parents as Teachers to a statewide program was 
perhaps my proudest accomplishment when I was Missouri's Governor.
  With additional resources, these programs could be expanded and 
enhanced to improve the opportunities for many more infants and young 
children. And we have found that all children can benefit from these 
programs. Economically successful, two-income families can benefit from 
early childhood programs just as much as a single-parent family with a 
mother seeking work opportunities.
  The legislation that Senator Kerry and I are introducing will support 
families by building on local initiatives like Parents as Teachers that 
have already been proven successful in working with families as they 
raise their infants and toddlers. The bill will help improve and expand 
these successful programs, of which there are numerous other examples, 
such as programs sponsored by the United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, as 
well as state initiatives such as ``Success by Six'' in Massachusetts 
and Vermont and the ``Early Childhood Initiative'' in Pennsylvania.
  The bill will provide federal funds to states to begin or expand 
local initiatives to provide early childhood education, parent 
education, and family support. The bill will also expand quality child 
care programs for families, especially infant care. Best of all, we 
propose to do this with no federal mandates, and few federal 
guidelines.
  Many of our society's problems, such as the high school dropout rate, 
drug and tobacco use, and juvenile crime can be traced in part to 
inadequate child care and early childhood development opportunities. 
Increasingly, research is showing us that a child's social and 
intellectual development as well as there likelihood to become involved 
in these types of difficulties is deeply rooted in the early 
interaction and nurturing a child receives in his or her early years.
  Ultimately, it is important to remember that the likelihood of a 
child growing up in a healthy, nurturing environment is the primary 
responsibility of his or her parents and family. Government cannot and 
should not become a substitute for parents and families, but we can 
help them become stronger by equipping them with the resources to meet 
the everyday challenges of parenting.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1069. A bill to provide economic security and safety for battered 
women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


           battered women's economic security and safety act

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Murray 
and Senator Schumer in introducing the Battered Women's Economic 
Security Act. Battered women face tremendous economic barriers when 
they leave their abusive relationships and set out to make a new life 
for themselves and their children. Our bill addresses the numerous and 
critical issues that victims of domestic violence face as they try to 
escape the violence in their lives.
  I know that Senator Murray joins me in applauding Senator Biden's 
efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the programs in the 
Violence Against Women Act. As I and many of my colleagues have heard 
from folks back home, these programs have provided invaluable and life 
saving resources to battered women and their families. I am proud to be 
an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill that Senator Biden has 
developed to build on the success of VAWA I and expand those programs.
  As a result of VAWA I, we now have an infrastructure in place that 
helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA provides the 
resources to enable local law enforcement and the courts prosecute 
those who batter women. And many other programs are now in place to 
help women leave their abusers.
  But, when a woman does take the initial step to leave her abuser and 
seek help, she is beginning a journey that is filled with obstacles, 
largest of which are economic. All to often battered women stay with 
their abuser because of the economic support he provides for her and 
her children. Now that we have begun to build an infrastructure that 
provides for the initial immediate needs of shelter and legal services, 
we need to look at the bigger picture. We must provide economic 
supports that allow battered women to provide for themselves and their 
children, and keep them safe after they leave temporary shelters. That 
is the reason Senator Murray and I are introducing the Battered Women's 
Economic Security Act.
  The Battered Women's Economic Security Act addresses the economic 
obstacles women who are victims of domestic violence face when trying 
to leave their abuser. For example, finding affordable and safe housing 
is critical for all battered women and their children, but particularly 
for low-income women. A 1998 report funded by the Ford Foundation found 
that of all homeless women and children, 50 percent of them are fleeing 
domestic violence. Let me say that again, half of all homeless women 
and children leave their home because the violence there threatens 
their lives.
  Not only are over half of homeless women fleeing violence, but too 
many of them do not find shelter that they need. A report from the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors found that homeless shelters are finding an 
increasing need for women and children. Of that growing need, 1 out of 
every 3 families that

[[Page 9903]]

shows up at a homeless shelter is turned away, and ends up on the 
street for the night.
  It is simply unacceptable for us to allow women and children, who are 
fleeing violence, to be turned out into the streets. When are we as a 
society going to stand up and say no more? Without safe shelter, women 
and their children will continue to stay in violent relationships 
because at least they have a roof over their heads. Such a situation is 
shameful in such a prosperous country as our own, and in such a booming 
economy as this one.
  Our bill makes sure that money goes directly to shelters for victims 
of domestic violence so that the people who are directly involved with 
helping battered women can help them find new housing. We also made 
sure that our bill provided resources to find that new housing by 
boosting the McKinney Homeless Act to provide funding for battered 
women and their children.
  Anyone who has known someone fleeing a violent relationship or has 
talked to advocates knows that safe shelter and housing are the first 
and immediate needs. But women cannot stay in shelters or transitional 
housing indefinitely. Women also need to find work to keep them on that 
path to independence and safety. Our bill protects women in the 
workplace so that they can keep their job and continue to deal with the 
multitude of issues that arise when a woman flees a violent 
relationship.
  All too often, domestic violence follows women to work. According to 
recent studies, between 24 and 30 percent of women surveyed had lost 
their job, due at least in part, to domestic violence. Many victims 
lose their jobs because of their batterer's disruptive behavior. Many 
miss work because they are beaten. Others miss work because their 
abusers force them to stay home.
  Many companies are poorly educated about the impact of domestic 
violence on women at work. Employers may fail to grant sufficient time 
off to attend civil or criminal legal proceedings or for safety 
planning. Some battered women find themselves penalized by their 
abuser's actions when employers dismiss or otherwise sanction employees 
once they learn they are in an abusive relationship One study found 
that 96% of the women who were working while involved in an abusive 
relationship had problems at work. Problems run the gamut from being 
late to missing work to having difficulty performing their job. More 
than 50 percent of these women reported being reprimanded at work for 
such problems and more than a \1/3\ of them said they had lost their 
jobs as a result.
  Our bill allows women to use the Family and Medical Leave Act to take 
time off to deal with the problems arising from leaving a violent 
relationship. Women need to deal with the court and legal system when 
they file for protective orders. Many times women need counseling for 
themselves and their children to support them as they establish a life 
separate from their batterers. Allowing women to use the FMLA to take 
this necessary time off will help women become more productive workers 
and give then the financial independence they need to begin a new, 
violence free life.
  Not only do we need to provide women with the flexibility that they 
need, but need to ensure that their rights are protected should they 
unfairly lose their job. This bill prohibits discrimination against an 
employee based on her status or experience as a victim of domestic 
violence. It recognizes that we need not only policies that prohibit 
discrimination, but teeth to give those policies some bite. Our bill 
would give women the legal means to challenge any discrimination they 
may have faced as a result of being a victim of domestic violence.
  As many of you know, we are still struggling to get all sectors of 
society to understand that domestic violence affects all aspects of a 
battered woman's life. Too many times women who have applied for health 
insurance are denied or charge exorbitant rates when insurance 
companies find out that they are victims of domestic violence. This is 
outrageous! Insurance discrimination penalizes victims of domestic 
violence for the actions of their abusers. Our bill makes sure that 
this form of discrimination will not be allowed.
  VAWA I took the first step in dedicating federal resources to 
addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its focus is law 
enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to 
truly end violence against women. We need to address their economic 
needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will 
eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in 
violent homes and relationships.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Battered Women's Economic Security and Safety Act of 1999--Legislative 
                                Summary


                 TITLE I.--Domestic Violence Prevention

       Subtitle A. Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims' 
     Housing.--Makes funding available for supportive housing 
     services through the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, 
     including rental assistance to victims trying to establish 
     permanent housing safe from the batterer.
       Subtitle B. Full Faith and Credit for Protection Orders.--
     Clarifies VAWA's full faith and credit provisions to ensure 
     meaningful enforcement by states and tribes; provides grants 
     to states and Tribes to improve enforcement and record 
     keeping.
       Subtitle C. Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection.--
     Prohibits discrimination in issuing and administering 
     insurance policies to victims of domestic violence with 
     uniform protection from insurance discrimination.
       Subtitle D. Access to Safety and Advocacy.--Issues grants 
     to provide legal assistance, lay advocacy and referral 
     services to victims of domestic violence who have inadequate 
     access to sufficient financial resources for appropriate 
     legal assistance; includes set-aside for tribes.
       Subtitle E. Battered Women's Shelters and Services.--Amends 
     the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to authorize 
     $1 billion to battered women's shelters over the next five 
     years; includes additional oversight and review; caps 
     spending for training and technical assistance by State 
     coalitions with the remaining money to go to domestic 
     violence programs; adds new proposals for training and 
     technical assistance; allots money for tribal domestic 
     violence coalitions.).
       Subtitle F. Battered Immigrant Women's Economic Security 
     and Safety--Addresses gaps, errors and oversights in current 
     legislation that impede battered immigrant women's ability to 
     flee violent relationships and survive economically; ensures 
     that battered immigrants with pending immigration 
     applications are able to access public benefits, Food Stamps, 
     SSI, housing, work permits, and immigration relief.


           TITLE II. Violence Against Women and the Workplace

       Subtitle A. National Clearinghouse on Domestic Violence and 
     Sexual Assault and the Workplace Grant.--Establishes 
     clearinghouse and resource center to give information and 
     assistance to businesses, employers and labor organizations 
     in their efforts to develop and implement responses to assist 
     victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
       Subtitle B. Victims' Employment Rights.--Prohibits 
     employers from taking adverse job actions against an employee 
     because they are the victims of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault or stalking.
       Subtitle C. Workplace Violence Against Women Prevention Tax 
     Credit.--Provides tax credit to businesses implementing 
     workplace safety programs to combat violence against women.
       Subtitle D. Employment Protection for Battered Women.--
     Ensures eligibility for unemployment compensation to women 
     separated from their jobs due to circumstances directly 
     resulting from domestic violence; requires employers who 
     already provide leave to employees to allow employees to use 
     that leave for the purpose of dealing with domestic violence 
     and its aftermath; allows women to use their family and 
     medical leave or existing leave under state law or a private 
     benefits program to deal with domestic abuse, including going 
     to the doctor for domestic violence injuries, seeking legal 
     remedies, attending court hearings, seeking orders of 
     protection and meeting with a lawyer; provides for training 
     of personnel involved in assessing unemployment claims based 
     on domestic violence.


TITLE III.--Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence Under Programs 
                Authorized under the Social Security Act

       Section 301. Waivers for Victims of Domestic Violence under 
     the TANF Program.--Finds that Congressional intent of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 was to allow states to take the effects of 
     domestic violence into consideration by allowing good cause, 
     temporary waivers of the requirements of the program for 
     victims of domestic violence; places no numerical limits upon

[[Page 9904]]

     States in the granting of good cause waivers; provides that 
     individuals granted good cause waivers shall not be included 
     in the participation rate for purposes of applying 
     limitations or imposing penalties on the States; allows for 
     Secretarial review and possible revocation of good cause 
     waivers granted in States where penalties have been imposed.
       Section 302. Disclosure Protections under the Child Support 
     Program.--Protects victims fleeing from domestic violence 
     from disclosure of their whereabouts through the federal 
     child support locator service.
       Section 303. Bonus to Encourage Women and Children's Well-
     Being.--Amends the Social Security Act to provide bonuses to 
     States that demonstrate high performance in operating their 
     State welfare programs by providing recipients and low-income 
     families with adequate access to affordable and quality child 
     care; by effectively placing recipients in sustainable wage, 
     non-traditional employment; and by adequately addressing 
     domestic violence in the lives of recipients of assistance; 
     requires HHS and others to develop a formula for measuring 
     State performance.


                   TITLE IV--Miscellaneous Provisions

       Contains technical amendments to assure access to services 
     by tribal women.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senator Wellstone to introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security 
Act. This has been a seven year effort and one that I will continue to 
pursue. I want to thank Senator Wellstone for his efforts on this 
important legislation. I also need to recognize the leadership of 
Senator Biden regarding the Violence Against Women Act. Without his 
work on this historic legislation since 1994, we could not be here 
today talking about the economic needs of victims of domestic violence.
  In 1994, we enacted the landmark Violence Against Women Act. For the 
first time, Congress said violence against women was a national 
disgrace and a public health threat. We had to act. This was no longer 
just a family matter or a family dispute, this was and is a serious 
threat against women and a serious threat to the community. We have had 
police officers in Washington state killed responding to domestic 
violence calls. We have seen too many women in the emergency room and 
too many families devastated by violence.
  VAWA set in motion a national response to this crisis. We are now in 
the process of reauthorizing and strengthening VAWA. This is my major 
priority. Reauthorization of VAWA cements the foundation we need to 
build the structure that will ultimately end domestic violence and 
abuse.
  The Battered Women's Economic Security Act takes the next logical 
step. As a result of the work that I have done concerning family 
violence, I have come to understand that the real long-term solution is 
to tear down the economic barriers that trap women in violent homes and 
relationships.
  Our legislation addresses many of the economic barriers that I know 
force a cycle of violence. I have met with many of the advocates in the 
state of Washington and heard from them first hand, about how these 
barriers make long term security for women and their children 
difficult. From housing to child care to job protection to welfare 
waivers, our legislation attempts to deal with the long term economic 
problems.
  Women should not have to be forced to choose between job security and 
violence. Each year one million individuals become victims of violent 
crimes while working on duty. Men are more likely to be attacked at 
work by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone 
they know. One-sixth of all workplace homicides of women are committed 
by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Boyfriends and 
husbands, both current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of 
violence against women in the workplace every year. This does not 
include harassment or the threat of violence. Clearly, women face a 
serious threat in the work place and yet if they leave to avoid harm, 
they are denied workers compensation. Perhaps even more offensive is 
the fact that some states require victims of domestic violence to seek 
employment in order to receive TANF benefits. To have any economic 
safety net some women are forced to jeopardize their own safety.
  This is not just an issue that effects victims of domestic violence. 
We all suffer the economic consequences of violence. it has been 
estimated that work place violence resulted in $4.2 billion in lost 
productivity and legal expenses for American businesses. From what I 
have heard from victims and advocates, this is a very conservative 
estimate. The health care costs are also equally staggering. Both the 
American Medical Association (AMA) and the Surgeon General have labeled 
violence against women a public health threat. Violence is the number 
one reason women ages 19 to 35 end up in the emergency room. One out of 
every three women can expect to be the victim of violence at some point 
in her life.
  Our legislation would also prohibit discriminating against victims of 
domestic violence in all lines of insurance. If a woman seeks treatment 
in an Emergency Room and reports this as domestic violence, she should 
not be denied disability or life insurance. If an estranged husband 
burns the house to the ground the woman should not be denied 
compensation simply because it was an act of domestic violence. To say 
that victims of domestic violence engage in high risk behavior similar 
to sky diving or race care driving is simply outrageous. It is the 
ultimate example of blaming the victim.
  Our legislation is not the final solution, but it begins the process 
of addressing long term economic needs. I am hopeful that once we have 
secured reauthorization of VAWA we can begin to focus on these economic 
problems. Without VAWA we have no foundation.
  I will be working with Paul and other Members of the Senate towards 
enactment of key provisions of the bill. I am also committed to 
continuing my work with Senator Biden in an effort to enact Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization during this session.
  I urge all of my colleagues to review the Battered Women's Economic 
Security Act. I encourage all of you to talk to your advocates and your 
police, ask them what issues keep women trapped in a violent home or 
relationship. Ask them what needs to be done to provide long term 
solutions. I know that after careful review and consideration, you will 
reach the same conclusions. There are economic barriers that must be 
torn down. I hope that many of you will join in cosponsoring this 
legislation and work with me to enact this comprehensive solution to 
ending the cycle of violence that too many women and children face 
every day.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Lott, 
        Mr. Nickles, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mack, Mr. Coverdell, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Helms, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chafee, and 
        Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1070. A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to wait for 
completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating 
a standard, regulation or guideline or ergonomics; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


           sensible ergonomics needs scientific evidence act

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Small Business to introduce the Sensible Ergonomics Needs 
Scientific Evidence Act of SENSE Act. This bill calls on the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do the sensible 
thing--wait for sound science before imposing new ergonomics 
regulations on small businesses. If enacted, the SENSE Act would 
require OSHA to wait for the results of a study by the National Academy 
of Sciences (NAS) before issuing proposed or final regulations, 
standards or guidelines on ergonomics. As a native of Missouri, the 
``Show Me State,'' waiting for the NAS study makes good sense to me.
  In introducing the SENSE Act, I am pleased to be joined by numerous 
colleagues from all across the country--including Senators Enzi, 
Jeffords, Burns, Voinovich, Snowe, Ashcroft,

[[Page 9905]]

McConnell, Lott, Nickles, Hutchinson, Mack, Coverdell, Collins, Shelby, 
Kyl, Fitzgerald, Abraham, Gregg, Hutchison, Helms, Bunning, Crapo, 
Bennett, DeWine, Hagel, Sessions, and Chafee. These Senators, like me, 
agree with their small business constituents that it makes good sense 
for OSHA to wait for the results of the NAS study before proposing 
additional regulatory requirements for small businesses.
  Just last year, Congress and the President agreed to spend $890,000 
for NAS to undertake a thorough, objective, and de novo review of the 
scientific literature to examine the cause-and-effect relationship 
between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal 
disorders. The study is intended to achieve a scientific understanding 
of the conditions and causes of musculoskeletal disorders. The NAS has 
selected a panel of experts to conduct the study. The panel will 
examine the scientific data on the multiple factors and influences that 
contribute to musculoskeletal disorders and answer seven questions 
provided by Representatives Bonilla and Livingston. The NAS will 
complete its study by January 2001. As intended by Congress and the 
President, the NAS study will assist OSHA and the Congress in 
determining whether sound science supports a comprehensive ergonomics 
regulation as envisioned by OSHA.
  In theory, an ergonomics regulation would attempt to reduce 
musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches 
and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on-
the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply 
on whether scientific evidence has established a true cause-and-effect 
relationship between such problems and workplace duties. We need to 
understand the relationship between work and these injuries before 
moving forward.
  Regrettably, rather than waiting for NAS' findings, OSHA now plans to 
publish a proposed rule by September of 1999. In fact, OSHA officials 
have suggested that a final rule could be issued by the end of 2000--
just a few months before NAS will complete its study. This simply 
doesn't make sense. The NAS study should identify scientific and 
medical studies that are based on sound science and provide solid 
scientific evidence regarding the causation of ergonomics injuries. Our 
intent is simply to ensure that the requirements of any ergonomics 
program proposed by OSHA are based on sound science and are effective 
to improve workplace safety and health. It only makes sense for OSHA to 
wait for the scientific and medical information needed to know whether 
it is headed down the right path.
  Waiting for the NAS study won't stop the progress being made as 
ergonomic principles are applied to the workplace. And, progress is 
being made. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the number of injuries and illnesses involving repeated 
trauma, strains, sprains, tears, and carpal tunnel syndrome are all on 
the decline. Employers are actively implementing measures to address 
ergonomic risk factors. The SENSE Act is in no way intended to 
discourage employers from continuing to implement voluntary measures 
where appropriate and effective. Similarly, the SENSE Act does not 
prevent OSHA from continuing to work on ergonomics. In fact, I would 
encourage OSHA to use the time prior to the completion of the NAS study 
to research ergonomics further, identify successful prevention 
strategies, and provide technical assistance. For those who would argue 
that waiting for the NAS study will result in more employees being 
injury, OSHA can exercise its enforcement authority under the General 
Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 
to ensure a safe workplace and address any significant ergonomic 
hazards. My bill doesn't change that authority provided under current 
law.
  Simply put, the SENSE Act requires OSHA to wait for NAS to complete 
its study and submit the findings in a report to Congress. Congress 
would then have 30 days to review the final report before OSHA issues 
proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines. From where I 
stand, it only makes sense for Congress and OSHA to have the benefit of 
the NAS study before OSHA proposes to require employers to implement a 
comprehensive program addressing musculoskeletal disorders.
  Tomorrow in the other body, the compansion bill to the SENSE Act is 
scheduled for mark up. H.R. 987, known as the ``Workplace Preservation 
Act,'' was introduced by Representantive Roy Blunt from Missouri on 
March 4. Representative Blunt is doing an excellent job shepherding his 
bill through the other body. In fact, his efforts have produced a 
bipartisan list of 138 cosponsors. I expect the Senate to show similar 
support for our Nation's small businesses.
  I urge my collagues in the Senate to take a good look at the SENSE 
Act and join us in supporting legislation to ensure that the federal 
government does not propose an ergonomics regulation for small 
businesses until Congress can assess the findings of the NAS study.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific 
Evidence (SENSE) Act be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                S. 1070

       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 ``Sensible Ergonomics Needs 
     Scientific Evidence Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Department of Labor, through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (referred to in this Act as 
     ``OSHA''), has announced that it plans to propose regulations 
     during 1999 to regulate ``ergonomics'' in the workplace. A 
     draft of OSHA's ergonomics regulation became available in 
     February 19, 1999.
       (2) In October, 1998, Congress and the President agreed 
     that the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the medical and scientific evidence 
     regarding musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to 
     evaluate the basic questions about diagnosis and causes of 
     such disorders. Given the uncertainty and dispute about these 
     basic questions, and Congress' intention that they be 
     addressed in a comprehensive study by the National Academy of 
     Sciences, it is premature for OSHA to propose a regulation on 
     ergonomics as being necessary or appropriate to improve 
     workers' health and safety until such study is completed.
       (3) An August, 1998, workshop on ``work related 
     musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of 
     Sciences reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal 
     disorders. It showed that there is insufficient evidence to 
     assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive motions.
       (4) A July, 1997, report by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewing 
     epidemiological studies that have been conducted of ``work 
     related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper 
     extremity, and low back'' showed that there is insufficient 
     evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from 
     repetitive motions. Such evidence would be necessary to write 
     an efficient and effective regulation.

     SEC. 3. DELAY OF STANDARD, REGULATION OR GUIDELINE.

       The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration, may not propose or issue in 
     final form any standard, regulation, or guideline on 
     ergonomics until--
       (1) the National Academy of Sciences--
       (A) completes a peer-reviewed scientific study, as mandated 
     by Public Law 105-277, of the available evidence examining a 
     cause and effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the 
     workplace and musculoskeletal disorders or repetitive stress 
     injuries; and
       (B) submits to Congress a report setting forth the findings 
     resulting from such study; and
       (2) the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date on which the final report under paragraph (1)(B) is 
     submitted to Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1071. A bill to designate the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory as the Center of Excellence for Environmental 
Stewardship of the Department of Energy land, and establish the Natural 
Resources Institute within the Center; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.

[[Page 9906]]




      environmental stewardship and natural resources act of 1999

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
Environmental Stewardship and Natural Resources Act which I am 
introducing today with Senator Craig as cosponsor.
  The nuclear defense capability of the United States has protected our 
form of government and ensured our freedoms since its inception during 
World War II. In order to sustain and develop our nuclear deterrence, a 
vast industrial complex was established. This complex of facilities was 
built under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its 
successor agency, the Department of Energy. Uranium mines, factories, 
laboratories, and reactors were located throughout the country to 
provide nuclear and conventional components for weapons. These 
facilities were mostly located on large tracts of land, which also 
included surrounding buffer areas for security.
  With the end of the cold war, and the mutual reduction of the United 
States and Russian nuclear arsenals, many of our nuclear facilities are 
closing, changing or reducing their missions. Land management at these 
facilities, throughout their production lives was limited to 
accomplishing their missions and providing isolation and security. 
Protection of the ecosystems and natural resources, on which our 
nuclear arsenal was built, did not rate high priority in the agency's 
planning. Any environmental benefits or natural resources protection on 
these facilities was truly incidental to their isolation.
  In addition to lack of natural resource planning, there exists a 
contamination legacy which has resulted in the largest and most 
expensive cleanup program in the federal government. Regardless of the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the cleanup program, some levels of 
contaminants will remain, and will need to be monitored and managed. 
Long term stewardship is the process of managing and protecting the 
natural resources that are unaffected by contamination, and also the 
continual monitoring and stabilization of contaminants that remain in 
place following mediation. Even after a facility is cleaned up and 
closed, no matter how effective the remediation effort, the federal 
government is still liable for any subsequent action that may be 
necessary to insure that no harm will come to humans or the 
environment.
  The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL, 
has a long history with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department 
of Energy. Originally known as the National Reactor Testing Station, 
this site constructed, tested, and operated 52 reactors for various 
defense and civilian purposes since the early 1950's. All but a handful 
of these reactors have been decontaminated and dismantled. In addition 
to this nuclear mission, the INEEL has developed expertise and 
experience in the modeling the movement of contaminants in the 
environment; and research and development of technologies necessary for 
the detection, monitoring, stabilization, and mediation of 
contamination. I propose, with this bill, to establsh the INEEL as the 
Department of Energy Center of Excellence for the development of 
technologies, techniques, and methodologies for the implementation of 
an effective Long Term Stewardship program throughout the nuclear 
weapons production complex.
  I also propose the establishment of a Natural Resource Institute at 
the INEEL. This institute will bring together scientists, scholars, and 
others in the field of natural resources management, to study complex 
issues that affect natural resources policy. The institute will also 
work on specific natural resource and environmental issues and 
problems, by utilizing the resources of the INEEL, northwest 
universities, states, and various federal agencies. The INEEL is a 
national laboratory, not is just a laboratory for the Department of 
Energy. The expertise, experience, and resources of this site must be 
made available to all. The natural Resource Institute will be the 
conduit for bringing expertise to the INEEL and for making information, 
data, and good science available for the solution of natural resource 
issues throughout the inland northwest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1073. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to ensure that United 
States industry is consulted with respect to all aspects of the WTO 
dispute settlement process; to the Committee on Finance.


            world trade organization enforcement act of 1999

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, developing trade policy that will 
increase Americans' competitiveness in the 21st century must be a 
priority of this Congress and of the administration. That is why I rise 
today, joined by Senators Daniel Inouye, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, 
Pat Roberts, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Enzi, to introduce the World Trade 
Organization Enforcement Act of 1999. It is a bill that will increase 
transparency and give the public more input into the dispute settlement 
process of the WTO. It is analogous to a ``Sunshine Law'' for the WTO.
  The United States plays a major role in leading the world and shaping 
its economy and must continue to do so. We must be leaders, not simply 
participants. Our leadership as a country will be effective only if our 
trade policy is clearly defined and is based on the vital interests of 
the American people, because if Americans do not accept our leadership 
on trade policy, neither will the rest of the world.
  Our success of more than 200 years has been because American is a 
nation dedicated to We the People. We are a nation whose greatness 
flows not from government, but from the creativity and ingenuity of the 
American people. Our service providers, manufacturers, retailers, 
farmers and ranchers, and investors are top notch compared with their 
competitors, and it is time for us in public service to lay aside the 
values and priorities of Washington, D.C., and promote the values and 
priorities of the American people.
  As I have traveled around Missouri, one thing is clear: citizens want 
America to be defined today as she was 100-plus years ago. We have been 
known as a land of ascending opportunity, that every generation in 
America has more opportunity than the previous generation. This is a 
definition of America that we must maintain--``the best is yet to 
come.''
  Already, U.S. companies are first-class in their production, 
processing, and marketing at home and abroad--always responding to the 
challenges of our competitive free-market system. While the United 
States can produce more goods and provide more services than any other 
country, we account for only five percent of the world's consuming 
population. That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of 
our borders--this is an astounding statistic when we put it in terms of 
creating opportunities.
  For example, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production is 
exported, but in September of last year, American farmers and ranchers 
faced the first monthly trade deficit of U.S. farm and food products 
since the United States began tracking trade data in 1941. Our farmers, 
or any other sector, simply will not succeed if they face descending 
opportunity. With manufacturing productivity increasing and with the 
consuming capacity of the world largely outside of our borders, our 
companies need equally increasing access to foreign demand. The 
prosperity of the next generation of Americans is tied to our current 
competitiveness in global markets.
  We must develop policies that will shape opportunities for the 21st 
century--opening new markets, ensuring that our trading partners live 
up to their commitments, and to the greatest extent possible avoiding 
sanctions that hurt only our market opportunities abroad.
  I still believe we must make a concerted effort to pass fast track 
trade negotiating authority. Because fast track has languished, U.S. 
businesses are increasingly being put at a competitive disadvantage. 
While Canada has already concluded a free trade agreement with Chile, 
and Mexico is expanding its free trade arrangement

[[Page 9907]]

with Chile, the United States lags behind. Our companies clearly are 
being put at a competitive disadvantage in our own hemisphere. America 
must lead, not follow--in our back yard and around the world.
  As we approach the next round of negotiations in the WTO, fast track 
is crucial to U.S. businesses. Clearly, trade negotiations designed to 
reduce or eliminate barriers and trade distorting practices have 
benefited our companies and our economy, and we need to continue our 
leadership role in multiple trade fora.
  However, support for fast track and new negotiations is tied in the 
public mind to the benefit they receive from existing trade agreements. 
It is of utmost importance that the United States closely monitor and 
vigorously enforce our trade agreements. The private sector must be 
able to rely on U.S. agreements to be productive and long-lasting.
  Opening foreign markets looms before us as a brick barricade. With 
the same will and authority of President Reagan before the Berlin Wall 
when he said--``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''--we must face 
head-on the barricades before our exporters. It's not an easy task, but 
then again, neither was dismantling the Evil Empire. As John Wayne said 
in ``The Big Trail'': ``No great trail is ever blazed without hardship. 
You've got to fight. That's life.''
  Just last week, the Europeans stood on their massive wall of 
protectionism built across the trail of free trade and simply rejected 
U.S. beef, even in the face of having lost the WTO case. We've got a 
trail to blaze--the Europeans cannot be allowed to make a mockery of 
the competitive spirit of our cattle ranchers. In this case, results, 
not words, count the most.
  Failing to implement agreements already negotiated creates an 
environment of descending opportunity. It is imperative, therefore, 
that the Administration follow through with enforcing the decisions the 
U.S. has won in the WTO. What good is winning a case if we are unable 
to enforce the judgment?
  It is clear that the most contentious issues ever to be brought 
before the WTO--whether it is negotiating new agreements or suing the 
dispute settlement process to enforce existing ones--have been about 
the agricultural policies of the United States and the European Union.
  One of the significant changes in the dispute settlement process in 
1994 was that panels would be set up and panel decisions would be 
adopted but for a consensus against doing so. Also, strict time lines 
were built into the process. Soon thereafter, the U.S. took two 
agriculture cases against the EU through the new WTO dispute process--
the banana case and the beef case (which had already been before the 
GATT panel). The new dispute settlement changes in the WTO worked, and 
the United States won these two agriculture cases without the EU having 
the ability to block unilaterally the cases from moving forward.
  For every triumph, however, the United States has suffered multiple 
defeats. Our most recent triumphs were getting the EU to accept a WTO 
dispute settlement process that is quick and binding, and winning 
agriculture cases against the EU in that settlement process. However, 
the EU is now denying U.S. farmers and ranchers the benefits of the WTO 
cases we won by stalling endlessly in the implementation of those 
decisions.
  If the EU, or any other country, is allowed to use delaying tactics, 
there could be detrimental effects on these agriculture cases and on 
future cases regardless of the sector litigated. Also, the public 
support for the WTO system and its ability to benefit U.S. interests 
will be undermined.
  It is essential that the administration make the EU beef ban a top 
priority. The United States has won this case against the EU numerous 
times, and we are clearly within our rights to benefit from the cases 
we litigate and win.
  We must take the position that if the EU insists on ``paying'' for 
its protectionism, the EU should ``pay'' at the highest levels 
allowable and on products that will hurt it the most. While U.S. 
ranchers can never be compensated fully for the EU's protectionist 
policies, the value of concessions withdrawn from the EU must at least 
equal the value of the beef producers current damage.
  Beef producers in Missouri will not benefit if the level of 
retaliation is not such that will induce the EU to change its 
protectionist policies. A strong response to the EU's treatment of U.S. 
agricultural products is long overdue. We must have reciprocity in our 
cross-Atlantic agricultural trade. If U.S. meat is not welcome in the 
EU, then EU meat should not be accepted in the United States.
  The EU's repeated, damaging actions against America's cattlemen must 
not go unaswered--that is why I have called on the Administration to 
retaliate with authority and that is why I am introducing the WTO 
Enforcement Act.
  The WTO Enforcement Act has two major objectives: ensure that the 
U.S. government affords adequate transparency and public participation 
in the U.S. decision-making process, and begin multilateral 
negotiations with a view toward incorporating more transparency and 
consultation in the multilateral context of the WTO dispute settlement 
process.
  If the farm groups and U.S. companies were to increase their public 
comment in the implementation and post-implementation stages of the WTO 
dispute settlement process, this will heighten the pressure on the 
foreign country to comply with the Panel decisions. Currently, while 
the USTR, Congress, and industry groups consult during the 
implementation stages of Panel decisions, making the comment and 
reporting requirements more established and anticipated will increase 
accountability. The WTO system needs to be given a chance to work, but 
the best way to do so is to increase pressure on those countries that 
would try to circumvent the implementation of panels. This is 
imperative not only for agriculture and our relations with the EU, it 
could affect all sectors that are litigated under the WTO dispute 
settlement process.
  The proposed modifications to U.S. domestic rules regarding dispute 
settlement will prove more effective if the losing party to a WTO 
dispute provides to the winning party its plan to comply with the WTO 
decision and if the winning party is given meaningfully opportunity to 
comment on the plan prior to its implementation.
  The WTO is currently in the midst of a review of the organization's 
dispute settlement procedures. Therefore, under the WTO Enforcement 
Act, the United States must request reforms that would oblige member 
government's to submit a proposed remedy well in advance of the 
deadline to comply to the decision and as well as consult with the 
other parties to the proceeding on the proposal.
  If the WTO Enforcement Act is passed, the U.S. public would be able 
to obtain more information about the foreign government's plans for 
compliance with WTO panel decisions and would be afforded a more formal 
opportunity to comment on how the process is working. If we negotiate 
trade agreements for American citizens wishing to do business in 
foreign markets, they have every right to voice their support for or 
objections to the way foreign governments or the U.S. government is 
making those agreements beneficial.
  It is time for us to enact policies that reflect our support for U.S. 
companies' efforts to reach their competitive potential internationally 
and policies that create ascending opportunity for Americans for the 
21st century so that we can say, with confidence, ``the best is yet to 
come.''

                          ____________________